\ WA APPLIED HISTORY SERIES 

EDITED BY BENJAMIN F. SHAMBAUGH 

VOLUME I NUMBER 2 


Road Legislation 
In Iowa 

BY 


JOHN E. BRINDLEY 



REPRINTED FROM VOLUME ONE OF THE IOWA 
APPLIED HISTORY SERIES PUBLISHED AT IOWA CITY 
IN 1912 BY THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA 


Monograph 























ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 



& 'i> /V 

<> < S 


n.»» % 

DEC 3 J9n 


f) 

*>* 3 

* 9 




$ ->«) 


4 


fnff I'oi^ 
fcUOlciTyfl 
■pB&SSlfO^fll 




EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION 


There is a widespread feeling that highway admin¬ 
istration in Iowa is inefficient and that our road 
legislation needs rewriting. Indeed, the demand for 
adequate legislation as to roads is quite as general as 
the demand for tax reform. Moreover, wise legis¬ 
lation in the one case as well as in the other will seek 
to make advance along the lines of experience. Thus, 
the history of road legislation must be made the 
starting point in any well directed effort to inaugu¬ 
rate reform measures. To know what has been done, 
and what is now being done, here and elsewhere, as to 
highway administration is to know what were best 
to do in the future. 

The history of road legislation in Iowa reveals at 
every stage the supreme importance of local govern¬ 
ment in the State’s administration. It is evident that 
the time has come when more attention must be given 
to administration in the townships and counties; for 
in the political readjustments which are pending the 
most extensive redefinition will be along lines of local 
administration. Moreover, in the redefinition of 
local institutions and methods of administration his¬ 
tory will serve as our most helpful guide. 

Benj. F. Shambatjgh 

Office of the Superintendent and Editor 
The State Historical Society of Iowa 
Iowa City 1912 

5 














AUTHOR’S PREFACE 


In the History of Road Legislation in Iowa, already- 
published by The State Historical Society of Iowa in the 
Iowa Economic History Series, the writer endeavored, 
first, to trace in some detail the numerous changes in the 
form of road administration as reflected in the road laws 
of Iowa from 1834, when the Iowa country became a part 
of the Territory of Michigan, down to the present day; 
and second, to present briefly a comparative study of the 
systems of road administration found in other States of 
the Union. It is the purpose of the present paper to 
outline topically, and in more condensed form, both the 
historical and comparative facts in such a way as to 
present the leading forces and tendencies with special 
reference to a program of constructive road legislation 
and administration. 

It is one thing to break up a given system of adminis¬ 
tration and examine its component parts in detail: it is 
another and vastly more difficult problem to interpret and 
re-define such a system of administration in terms of 
progressive social evolution. With this thought in mind 
the writer is inclined to believe that the lessons which the 
past has for the future in the constructive work of evolv¬ 
ing a method or plan of scientific road administration 
may best he understood by presenting the historical and 


7 


8 


APPLIED HISTORY 


comparative facts under the following heads: first, the 
distribution of power and authority among a long list of 
officials representing the different units of government 
from the State down to the smallest administrative sub¬ 
division; second, the tendencies toward centralization or 
decentralization in the actual work of supervision and 
control, with special reference to the control of road and 
bridge finances; and third, the economic and engineering 
aspects of highway administration. Furthermore, a 
chapter has been devoted to a comparative study of road 
legislation in the United States, since a knowledge of the 
experience of other States is essential in any movement 
toward reform in road administration in Iowa. 

The sources and authorities upon which this paper is 
based may be found in the Notes and References given 
in the author’s History of Road Legislation in Iowa 
referred to above. 

John E. Brindley 

The Iowa State College of 
Agriculture and Mechanic Arts 
Ames Iowa 1912 


CONTENTS 


I. Historical Analysis of Road Legislation . . 11 

DISTRIBUTION OF POWER AND AUTHORITY . . 11 

TENDENCIES TOWARD CENTRALIZATION AND DECEN¬ 
TRALIZATION ...... 26 

ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF THE PROB¬ 
LEM ....... 40 

II. Comparative Study of Road Legislation . . 47 

STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS . . .48 

STATE AID IN ROAD BUILDING .... 54 

LOCAL SUPERVISION OF ROADS . . . .61 

ROAD AND BRIDGE FUNDS . . . . .74 

THE MOTOR VEHICLE TAX ..... 83 

PERSONAL ROAD TAXES ..... 85 

PROPERTY ROAD TAXES . . . . .87 

CONVICT LABOR ON ROADS . . . . .87 

TENDENCIES IN ROAD LEGISLATION ... 88 

III. Standards of Road Legislation .... 92 


9 














I 

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF ROAD LEGISLATION 


DISTRIBUTION OF POWER AND AUTHORITY 

From an historical standpoint perhaps the most im¬ 
portant subject to be considered with reference to the 
road and bridge question is the problem of administra¬ 
tion or, in other words, the distribution of administrative 
power and authority among the various subdivisions of 
government, both State and local. The history of road 
and bridge legislation is in a very real sense an organic 
part of the history of the entire governmental system of 
Iowa, but more especially is it a phase of the history of 
local government. Indeed, the history of township and 
county government in Iowa forms a necessary working 
basis for the history of road and bridge legislation. The 
distribution of power and authority between the sub¬ 
district, the township or similar division of local govern¬ 
ment, and the county must therefore be studied before 
the other important aspects of the road and bridge ques¬ 
tion can be clearly understood. In fact, the machinery 
of administration constitutes the necessary framework of 
any great political, social, or economic problem which has 
become thoroughly interwoven with the functions of 
government. 

An historical analysis of road and bridge legislation 
in Iowa, viewed from the standpoint of the distribution 
of administrative authority, may conveniently be pre¬ 
sented under the following heads: first, the road legis- 


11 


12 


APPLIED HISTORY 


lation of the Territory of Michigan, 1834-1836; second, 
the road legislation of the original Territory of Wis¬ 
consin, 1836-1838; third, road administration under the 
commissioner plan of county government, 1838-1851; 
fourth, the supervision of highways under the county 
judge system, 1851-1860; fifth, road administration by 
the county board of township supervisors, 1860-1870; 
sixth, road administration under the present county 
supervisor, or more properly commissioner, system of 
county government; and seventh, the activity of the State 
Highway Commission which characterizes the period 
since 1904. 

In Michigan the township was from an early date a 
very important unit of local government. In fact, as Dr. 
C. R. Aurner has pointed out in his History of Township 
Government in Iowa, the organization of the township 
preceded that of the county in the Territory of Michigan. 
It logically followed, therefore, that the administration 
of roads and bridges was primarily a township function 
during the period when the Iowa country was a part of 
the Territory of Michigan. 

Of the numerous local officials clothed with authority 
in the administration of roads and highways during this 
period, special mention should be made of (1) the town¬ 
ship hoard composed of the supervisor, the township 
clerk, and the justices of the peace, or a majority of them, 
who acted primarily as a board of audit, (2) three town¬ 
ship road commissioners, having the same general powers 
with reference to the laying out, opening, and main¬ 
tenance of highways as are now vested in the so-called 
board of township trustees, (3) a number of road over¬ 
seers, corresponding to the number of road districts, 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


13 


appointed by the township road commissioners, and (4) 
the county board of supervisors, composed of one repre¬ 
sentative from each civil township and vested with sub¬ 
stantial authority both from the standpoint of general 
supervision and the control of finances. In other words, 
there was a somewhat elaborate system of road adminis¬ 
tration which centered very largely about the civil town¬ 
ship, either directly through various township officials or 
indirectly through representatives of the civil townships, 
who at the same time served as a county board of super¬ 
visors. As a matter of fact, one of the most distinctive 
characteristics of the Michigan road law of 1833 was the 
extent to which authority was carefully parcelled out 
among a group of local officials. 

It is a well recognized principle of our constitutional 
and legal system that the rights of the individual may 
best be conserved by following to its logical conclusion 
the doctrine of the separation of powers. This is true 
not only in the case of the Federal government, but also 
in the field of State and local authority. In the Michigan 
road law under consideration there is evident a careful 
balancing of authority and power between the county, 
the township, and the road district or subdivision of the 
township. Furthermore, not only were the functions of 
road administration divided between the county board of 
supervisors acting as a county legislative body, the town¬ 
ship commissioners of highways, the sub-district over¬ 
seers of highways, the juries of freeholders appointed 
for various purposes, the township collector, and the 
township clerk, but an appeal was granted to the judges 
of the circuit court in order to guarantee still further the 
rights or supposed rights of the individual. In fact, the 
administration of roads under certain conditions was 


14 


APPLIED HISTORY 


actually placed in the hands of the circuit court. It is 
thus apparent that the Michigan statute affords an ex¬ 
cellent example of how the work of administration may 
be broken up, decentralized, and dismembered so that 
practically nothing is left but a confused mass of statu¬ 
tory provisions. The pioneers, in their earnest desire to 
conserve what they believed to be the largest measure of 
individual rights, were making practically impossible the 
efficient administration of law. 

During the Wisconsin period of the Territorial his¬ 
tory of Iowa there seems to have been a tendency to make 
the county a relatively more important unit of local ad¬ 
ministration. To what extent this was the outcome, first, 
of a more or less unconscious adaptation of statutes from 
older jurisdictions, second, of an actual conflict between 
the township and county principles of local government 
on the basis of concrete fact and argument, and finally, of 
the necessity from time to time of creating political insti¬ 
tutions to meet the demands of pioneer conditions, can 
not be ascertained except by a thorough comparative and 
historical study of the whole complex system of township 
and county organization. Since the pioneers were essen¬ 
tially practical men it is altogether probable that the 
drafting of Territorial statutes was to a very large extent 
a matter of more or less hasty adaptation of forms with 
which the law-makers themselves were most familiar. 

At least two important road laws were enacted by the 
original Territory of Wisconsin. The first act, passed in 
1836, provided for the annual election of three township 
supervisors, who were to act at the same time as a county 
board of supervisors. This statute was evidently a com¬ 
promise measure, and it paved the way for the more 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


15 


important act of 1838 which produced a complete and 
radical change in the general system of road administra¬ 
tion. In the latter act the board of supervisors, which 
had been both a township and a county body, was super¬ 
seded by a hoard of county commissioners elected for a 
term of three years. The new county board was vested 
with general supervision over highways, including the 
right to appoint road supervisors and to assign to each 
supervisor a definite road district. In fact, the hoard of 
county commissioners, as created in 1838, possessed 
powers and authority which during the Michigan period 
had been parcelled out among the so-called township 
board, the township highway commissioners, and the 
county board of supervisors, composed as it was of repre¬ 
sentatives from the civil townships. Moreover, the road 
supervisor appointed by the board of county commission¬ 
ers under the Wisconsin act of 1838 was the logical suc¬ 
cessor of the road overseer appointed by the township 
road commissioners during the Michigan period. 

After Iowa had become a separate Territory in 1838 
the road laws were for several years borrowed partly 
from Wisconsin and Michigan and partly from the stat¬ 
utes of Ohio. An act to provide for the laying out and 
opening of Territorial roads, passed in 1838, was copied 
directly from the laws of the original Territory of Wis¬ 
consin; while Wisconsin in turn appears to have copied 
the same statute from the laws of the Territory of 
Michigan. 

It was during the second session of the Legislative 
Assembly of the Territory of Iowa that the statutes of 
Ohio became an important factor in shaping road legis¬ 
lation. This may no doubt be explained in a measure by 


16 


APPLIED HISTORY 


the fact that Governor Lucas had formerly been Governor 
of Ohio and was thoroughly familiar with the laws of 
that State. The Iowa act providing for the organization 
of townships was modeled very largely on the Ohio plan, 
except that the system was optional and not mandatory. 
The act for defining the duties of supervisors of roads 
and highways and the act for opening and regulating 
roads and highways were both taken almost literally 
from the statutes of Ohio. The county-township system 
of local government which had prevailed in the original 
Territory of Wisconsin, however, had an important in¬ 
fluence in shaping road legislation. Indeed, it may be 
stated that, while the form of the road laws enacted dur¬ 
ing the second session of the Legislative Assembly of the 
Territory of Iowa was taken largely from Ohio, the sub¬ 
stance was partly borrowed from Wisconsin. 

The Territorial legislation of 1839-1840 provided for 
two distinct systems of road administration: that of the 
county, which was basic and was adopted from the Wis¬ 
consin laws; and that of the township, which was op¬ 
tional and was adopted from the Ohio laws. 

In Iowa, however, the township was destined to be¬ 
come a more and more important unit of local government 
from the standpoint of road supervision and control — 
a tendency which may be observed even in the later 
legislation of the Territorial period. In fact, it may be 
stated that between 1840 and 1846 the township principle 
was gradually becoming firmly established. On the other 
hand, the powers of the boards of county commissioners 
were increasing, especially with reference to the laying 
out and opening of roads and the jurisdiction which was 
conferred upon them in the case of so-called Territorial 
roads. To this movement the pioneers objected from 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


17 


time to time, it being declared that the board of county- 
commissioners had been vested with great and unwar¬ 
ranted powers which ought to be parcelled out among 
smaller units of government in order to bring the admin¬ 
istration of the laws closer to the people. 

The commissioner system of county government re¬ 
mained in force, however, until the adoption of the Code 
of 1851. In fact, the period which intervened between the 
admission of Iowa into the Union in 1846 and the enact¬ 
ment of the Code of 1851 was not characterized by any 
important change in the general system of road adminis¬ 
tration. The relative powers vested in the township and 
county remained substantially the same as during the 
Territorial period. Other problems, such as the building 
of plank and graded toll roads and the necessity of regu¬ 
lating certain corporations were now engaging public 
attention. 

The Code of 1851, however, brought about revolution¬ 
ary changes in the whole field of local government, and 
consequently in the administration of roads and bridges. 
From July 1,1851, when the Code of 1851 went into effect, 
until February 2, 1853, when the system of district road 
supervisors was established, the administration of roads 
and bridges was under the joint supervision and control 
of a county road supervisor elected by the people for a 
term of two years and the county judge elected by the 
people for a term of four years. The county road super¬ 
visor had jurisdiction over all the roads of his county; 
but he was made responsible to the county judge, who had 
inherited the powers and authority previously vested in 
the board of county commissioners and was at the same 
time the auditing officer of the county. Briefly stated, 


2 


18 


APPLIED HISTORY 


financial responsibility was vested primarily in the 
county judge; while the field work, including the actual 
supervision of the laying out, opening, and maintenance 
of roads, was in the hands of the county road supervisor, 
which official was therefore clothed with extensive power 
and authority. 

This important legislation reduced the civil township 
to a minor administrative division in charge of a deputy 
appointed by and directly responsible to the county road 
supervisor, who in turn was made responsible to the 
county judge. As a unit of local government having sub¬ 
stantial supervision of highways, the civil township was 
practically blotted out. Indeed, the Code of 1851 repre¬ 
sents the largest measure of administrative centraliza¬ 
tion that has ever existed in Iowa — a fact which is 
clearly apparent when its provisions are compared with 
the reforms now being urged by the advocates of the good 
roads movement. 

For example, it is now generally admitted that town¬ 
ship trustees should have the right to appoint the 
township road superintendent and exercise practically 
complete jurisdiction over the dragging of the public 
highways. At the present time no one would seriously 
advocate the appointment of township road superintend¬ 
ents by the county board of supervisors, and yet the 
deputy township road master was appointed by the 
county road supervisor in 1851. Such a large measure of 
administrative centralization in the supervision of high¬ 
ways would now justly be regarded as an unwarranted 
usurpation of powers and duties which may wisely be 
vested in the civil township. While present-day authori¬ 
ties on road legislation and administration agree that the 
supervision and control of roads and bridges should be 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


19 


exercised partly by the State and partly by the county, 
the fact that a substantial amount of power may at the 
same time be wisely exercised by the duly elected repre¬ 
sentatives of the townships rests upon an equally secure 
foundation. 

While the appointment of the township road master 
by the county road supervisors in 1851 represents, no 
doubt, greater centralized authority than would be toler¬ 
ated at the present time, the same thing can not be said 
of the office of county road supervisor — a fact which 
may well be considered in connection with the present 
movement for the creation of the office of county road 
engineer. According to the proposed plan, the county 
road engineer is to be given jurisdiction over the high¬ 
ways of his county quite similar to that possessed by the 
county road supervisor in 1851, and is also to be made 
responsible to the county board of supervisors in much 
the same way that the county road supervisor was made 
responsible to the county judge under the system of high¬ 
way administration which prevailed after the adoption 
of the Code of 1851 . 

The following differences, however, should be noted: 
first, the proposed county engineer would be appointed 
by the county board of supervisors and not elected by the 
people; second, he would be an expert civil engineer and 
a practical road builder (requirements which for obvious 
reasons did not appear in the Code of 1851 ); and finally, 
he would not be clothed with authority to appoint town¬ 
ship road superintendents, since the granting of such 
power would be an invasion of the legitimate and proper 
sphere of township government. In short, the county 
road supervisor of 1851 possessed certain powers and 
authority which are now wisely placed under the juris- 


20 


APPLIED HISTORY 


diction of the township trustees, and which, therefore, 
need not and should not be vested in the proposed county 
engineer. 

The county judge system became operative on July 1, 
1851, and remained in force until July 4,1860. It should 
not be assumed, however, that the county judge continued 
to possess the very extensive and somewhat arbitrary 
powers originally granted to him by the provisions of the 
Code of 1851 . The student of political science is familiar 
with the well known maxim that forms of government 
frequently persist long after the substance of authority 
has disappeared or has been transferred to other agen¬ 
cies. This was in a large measure true of the office of 
county judge during the period from 1851 to 1860. Be¬ 
ginning with February 2, 1853, when the law creating 
district road supervisors went into effect, the county 
judge was rapidly shorn of much of the unusual power 
which had been granted to him in 1851. By 1858 the 
office was but a shadow of its former self, a large part of 
the authority which the county judge had originally pos¬ 
sessed over roads and bridges having been gradually 
transferred to the township clerk, the township trustees, 
and the district road supervisors. 

Partly as a reaction against the arbitrary authority 
of the county judge, but more largely as the result of the 
character, training, and temperament of the early settlers 
of Iowa, one of the most distinctive tendencies of the 
period from 1851 to 1860 was the rapid growth of senti¬ 
ment in favor of the township-county principle of local 
government. The great centralization of power and au¬ 
thority in the hands of the county judge tended to bring 
about a decided reaction which worked to the advantage 
of the civil township. In the matter of roads and bridges 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


21 


the township trustees and the township clerk were gradu¬ 
ally clothed with authority that had been vested in the 
county judge or county road supervisor. In fact, by 1858 
the civil township had secured a dignified and worthy 
position in the realm of local government, the substance 
of financial power being placed in the hands of the town¬ 
ship trustees and therefore brought into closer touch 
with the people. 

The transfer of authority from the county to the 
township, however, was not the only instance of adminis¬ 
trative decentralization during the period from 1851 to 
1860. While the general supervision of roads and 
bridges, together with the power to levy taxes for their 
support, became almost wholly a township rather than a 
county function, the actual direction of road work was 
placed in the hands of district road supervisors. Each 
township was divided into road districts by the township 
trustees and a road supervisor was elected by the people 
in each district. In other words, authority which from 
July 1, 1851, to February 2, 1853, had been vested in a 
township deputy appointed by the county road super¬ 
visor, was now placed in the hands of officials elected in 
road districts which represented subdivisions of the 
township. Briefly stated, the size of the district was re¬ 
duced and the appointive principle was superseded by 
that of election. 

The period under review was therefore one of tran¬ 
sition and compromise in which authority was divided 
among the county, the township, and the so-called road 
district; and at the same time powers of administration 
were parcelled out among a long list of officials, including 
the county judge, the township trustees, the township 
clerk, the district road supervisors, and the district 


22 


APPLIED HISTOEY 


court. The township clerk represented a sort of con¬ 
necting link between the district road supervisors and 
township trustees, on the one hand, and between the 
county judge and the township trustees, on the other — 
thus being the cementing principle of the local adminis¬ 
trative organization composed of the road district, the 
township, and the county. In somewhat the same man¬ 
ner the proposed county road engineer under present 
conditions would form a bond of union between the town¬ 
ship, the county, and the State, giving vitality, elasticity, 
and purpose to the whole system of road administration. 

The office of county judge, after being gradually re¬ 
duced to a position of comparatively small power and 
authority by the rapid growth of the principle of town¬ 
ship organization, was finally abolished in 1860. As one 
might expect, the General Assembly went to the opposite 
extreme in outlining a plan of county government. From 
1851 to 1860, the powers of county government had been 
exercised largely by one official, the county judge. By 
the legislation of 1860 these powers were parcelled out 
among a group of officials elected by and representing 
the civil townships. The county board of township 
supervisors created in 1860, and modeled largely on the 
New York system, continued in force until 1870. This 
change from one-man power to authority vested in a 
group of officials was not so revolutionary in character, 
however, as might at first be assumed, for the reason 
that the county judge had gradually been deprived of a 
large part of his original power before the complete 
change of system was finally made. In other words, the 
repeal of the county judge system was gradually effected 
by a process of elimination during the period from 1853 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


23 


to 1860, while the civil township was at the same time 
coming to possess a dignified position in the field of local 
government. 

It should be observed that under the new plan of 
local organization township and county functions were 
so blended and interwoven into one complex system as to 
remove any clear line of demarcation between the two. 
The township supervisor, representing as he did the civil 
township, had more in common with the township trus¬ 
tees and the township clerk than would be possible in the 
case of a member of a county board elected from a larger 
jurisdiction. When it is remembered that the supervisor 
was a township as well as a county official it will readily 
be seen that there was no longer any reason why the 
county board of township supervisors should not exer¬ 
cise a much larger supervision over roads and highways 
and a greater control of finances than the people had 
been willing to grant to the county court. Under the re¬ 
organized system the control of finances by the county 
board meant its control in the last analysis by township 
officials directly responsible to the people and familiar 
with local conditions. The reasons for depriving the 
county judge of fiscal authority during the period from 
1851 to 1860 did not apply to the county board of town¬ 
ship supervisors in the decade from 1860 to 1870. In 
other words, the tendencies making for decentralization 
were checked or at least retarded, and the new period 
was one in which the powers and authority of the civil 
township and the county, respectively, were destined to 
become differentiated and more clearly defined. 

Nevertheless, when it is recalled that the district road 
supervisor — elected by the people in a subdivision of the 
civil township — was retained, it is evident that the 


24 


APPLIED HISTORY 


decade from 1860 to 1870 was primarily one of adminis¬ 
trative decentralization. With the powers and authority 
of the various units of local government more clearly 
differentiated, however, it soon proved to be both logical 
and desirable to create a distinct system of county gov¬ 
ernment composed of representatives elected from larger 
jurisdictions than the civil township and who would 
therefore in reality represent the entire county, instead 
of individual townships. 

The change from the supervisor to the commissioner 
system of county government came in 1870, when county 
authority was vested in a board of three supervisors — 
which number might be increased to five or seven by a 
vote of the people of the county. Manifestly, the new 
system of county organization represented a compromise 
between the county judge and the county hoard of town¬ 
ship supervisors. The name ‘ ‘ supervisor ’ 1 was retained 
and the optional increase to five or seven members was a 
concession to the advocates of the township-county prin¬ 
ciple of county organization. With a county board en¬ 
tirely separate from the various boards of township 
trustees there came to be a more distinct line of demarca¬ 
tion between the respective spheres of township and 
county authority. Indeed, the period from 1870 to the 
present time has been characterized by the vesting of 
certain functions definitely in the hands of the county 
supervisors, while other functions have been placed just 
as definitely under the authority of township trustees. 

The resolutions adopted by the State Road Conven¬ 
tion, held at Iowa City in 1883, embodied the following 
recommendations: first, the appointment of a township 
road superintendent or road master for at least a part 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


25 


of the year, thus substituting the civil township for the 
small road district as a unit of actual road administra¬ 
tion; and second, the establishment of a county road 
fund, which meant that the county should be differenti¬ 
ated from the township and made a more important unit 
of local government for the supervision and control of 
highways. In a word, by condemning the supervision of 
highways by small road districts and at the same time 
endorsing the proposition to create a county road fund, 
the convention took a forward step in favor of central¬ 
izing power and authority in road and bridge matters in 
the civil township or similar unit of local government on 
the one hand and in the county on the other. 

The epoch-making act to promote the improvement of 
highways which was passed in 1884 (partially, at least, as 
a result of the sentiment aroused by the State Road Con¬ 
vention) provided that the county board of supervisors 
“may” levy a tax to create a county road fund and the 
township trustees “may” consolidate the several road 
districts of their township into one highway district. 
The optional county road fund was made mandatory in 
1894 and the optional consolidation of local road districts 
was made mandatory in 1902. When there is added to 
this legislation the act creating the State Highway Com¬ 
mission in 1904 the machinery of road and bridge admin¬ 
istration which is in existence at the present time is 
complete. 

Briefly stated, power and authority in road and bridge 
matters is now .vested: first, in the township trustees or 
similar local governing board; second, in the county 
board of supervisors; and third, in the State Highway 
Commission —which at present, however, possesses no 
direct supervision and control, but is required to collect 


26 


APPLIED HISTORY 


statistics and may be consulted from time to time by 
different local authorities. 

TENDENCIES TOWARD CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION 

Having examined in general outline the forms of 
road administration or, in other words, the distribution 
of power and authority among the various local officials, 
an attempt will now be made to present in more concrete 
form and in somewhat greater detail the tendencies 
making for the centralization or decentralization of ad¬ 
ministrative authority which from time to time have 
characterized the road and bridge legislation enacted by 
the General Assembly of Iowa. 

The ultimate end of all government, especially of 
democratic government, is to secure popular control and 
at the same time administrative efficiency. On the one 
hand, the desire to place government more directly in 
the hands of the people has resulted in developing the 
power and authority of the civil township, or even of the 
local sub-district, and has in fact brought about a greater 
and greater amount of administrative decentralization. 
On the other hand, the necessity of enforcing or adminis¬ 
tering law on a more efficient basis has frequently made 
necessary a greater centralization of administrative 
powers. In other words, the desire of a certain class of 
people for increased popular control, on the one hand, 
and the growing appreciation of the need of adminis¬ 
trative efficiency, on the other, have constantly been 
apparent in the contending forces of centralization or 
decentralization in the whole sphere of government, 
national, State, and local. 

During the Michigan period of the Territorial history 
of Iowa, the civil township was the dominating unit of 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


27 


local government. In fact, the organization of the town¬ 
ship, as has already been observed, preceded that of the 
county. The form of local government which prevailed 
at that time, borrowed as it was very largely from New 
York, represented a large measure of decentralized 
authority, in which the supervision of highways was 
vested partly in the township and partly in small road 
districts or administrative subdivisions of the township. 
Thus, the work of the supervision and control of roads 
and bridges was parcelled out among a large group of 
local officials without any scientific plan or definite pur¬ 
pose. 

The authority vested in the civil township was exer¬ 
cised by a township board composed of the supervisor, 
the township clerk, and the justices of the peace, and by 
three township road commissioners acting under the 
supervision of the township board and having large pow¬ 
ers with reference to the laying out, opening, and main¬ 
taining of highways. At the same time the actual 
direction of road work was conferred upon road over¬ 
seers, appointed by the township road commissioners 
and representing administrative subdivisions of the 
township. The local road overseer, during the period 
under consideration, represented the extreme of admin¬ 
istrative decentralization — a system which was soon 
abolished, but after being reestablished in 1853 was 
destined to continue in force in Iowa with only a few 
modifications until the epoch-making good roads legis¬ 
lation of 1902. 

Furthermore, when it is recalled that the county 
board of supervisors at this time was a body of officials 
elected in the civil townships on a basis similar to that 
which again prevailed in the decade from 1860 to 1870, it 


28 


APPLIED HISTORY 


appears that almost the entire supervision and control 
of highways, including the control of road finances, was 
primarily a township or sub-district function. In the 
first place, practically all road taxes at that time were 
paid in labor and worked out under the direction of the 
local road overseers appointed by the township road com¬ 
missioners, who in turn were subject to the supervision 
of the township board. This type of legislation repre¬ 
sented the extreme of the movement to secure what was 
supposed to be popular control by bringing government 
closer to the people. 

It should be noted, however, that the extraordinary 
expenditure required by the building or repairing of 
bridges made it necessary to levy a small county tax or, 
in other words, to create a county bridge fund. This was 
done in order to prevent the taxpayers of any particular 
township from being unreasonably overburdened by such 
extraordinary expenditures. The money thus collected 
was paid over to the commissioners of highways of the 
township in which it was to be expended on the order of 
the supervisors — the obvious purpose of this provision 
of the law being to bring about a more equitable dis¬ 
tribution of road taxes as between the county and the 
townships. In a word, the road law under consideration, 
by providing a method of apportioning extraordinary 
fiscal burdens, first, as between the township and the 
road district, and second, as between the county and the 
township, represented a tendency to centralize financial 
control partly in the civil township and partly in the 
county, which was later developed in the legislation of 
1853, 1858, and 1870, as well as in the more recent legis¬ 
lation of 1894 and 1902. It is, indeed, a striking fact that 
a county bridge fund was created during the Michigan 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


29 


period of the Territorial history of Iowa; while a county 
road fund was not created until more than half a century 
later, in 1894. 

It has been observed that from 1836 to 1838, when the 
Iowa country was a part of the original Territory of 
Wisconsin, there was a marked tendency to increase the 
authority of the county in the supervision and control of 
highways and bridges. This change was brought about 
very largely by adopting the commissioner system of 
county government, which took the place of the system of 
government by the county board of township super¬ 
visors that prevailed in the Territory of Michigan. This 
meant that power and authority was centralized in three 
county commissioners which had formerly been exercised 
by a number of local officials, including especially the 
township board and the township highway commission¬ 
ers. In the place of a local road overseer, appointed by 
the township road commissioners, the Wisconsin act pro¬ 
vided for a road supervisor to be appointed by the board 
of county commissioners. Judged from almost every 
standpoint, including the vital question of financial con¬ 
trol, a much larger measure of authority was vested in 
the county under the legislation of the original Territory 
of Wisconsin than had prevailed during the earlier 
Michigan period. 

Any review of the period under consideration with 
reference to the question of centralized or decentralized 
authority would be incomplete without calling attention 
to the important administrative functions in road mat¬ 
ters which were vested in the Territory itself. Reference 
is here made not only to “An Act to locate and establish 
a Territorial road west of the Mississippi”, which in¬ 
augurated the policy of laying out and opening Terri- 


30 


APPLIED HISTORY 


torial roads by special acts —- a policy which continued in 
force until 1857 — but also to the general act of 1838 
providing for laying out and opening Territorial roads. 
While the cost of such highways was paid by the various 
counties through which the road passed, it was generally 
recognized at the time that in order to facilitate travel 
and encourage settlement the Territory should be given 
a definite sphere of jurisdiction over the important work 
of laying out and opening some of the principal high¬ 
ways, including military roads. This important func¬ 
tion, exercised first by the Territory and later by the 
State of Iowa, was destined to develop until the coming 
of the railroad had relegated the ordinary highway 
almost entirely to the supervision and control of local 
authorities. In fact, during the Territorial period and 
for a number of years after Iowa was admitted into the 
Union, the Territory and later the State exercised a 
sphere of authority in road and bridge matters which 
was lost after the introduction of railroads and has not 
been entirely regained even at the present time. 

After the admission of Iowa into the Union in 1846 
no important change in the machinery of local govern¬ 
ment was made until the adoption of the Code of 1851. 
In the meantime the commissioner system of county gov¬ 
ernment continued in force, but more or less objection 
was heard from time to time regarding the arbitrary 
powers which some people claimed were exercised by this 
board. While the civil township was able to retain sub¬ 
stantially all of the authority which it had gained during 
the period from 1840 to 1846, it is none the less true that, 
on the whole, the tendencies of the time favored the 
centralization of administrative authority in the county. 

The important legislation of 1851, when considered 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


31 


from the standpoint of administrative control, was unique 
in the whole realm of local government, including the 
administration of roads and bridges. Powers and duties 
which during the Michigan period were exercised by 
supervisors representing the civil townships, and from 
1838 to 1851 by three county commissioners, were central¬ 
ized in 1851 in the county judge. In other words, from 
1834 to 1851 county government gradually passed from 
the control of a group of men to the control of a single 
individual. Moreover, the general supervision and actual 
direction of road work — which during the Michigan 
period was parcelled out among a list of officials, in¬ 
cluding the township board, the township road commis¬ 
sioners, and the sub-district road overseers, and later 
was exercised by road supervisors appointed by the 
board of county commissioners — was now centralized in 
one county road supervisor elected by the people and 
clothed with authority to appoint deputy road overseers. 
Not only was the small road district abolished, but the 
civil township itself was practically blotted out as a unit 
of road and bridge administration. Furthermore, finan¬ 
cial control, which at first had been exercised largely by 
township boards and later by a county board of three 
members, was also centralized in the hands of one man. 

Manifestly, this system of administrative centraliza¬ 
tion was extreme in character and could not be expected 
to endure. The Code Commissioners who framed it had 
in mind the importance of administrative efficiency rather 
than the desirable or at least practical necessity of popu¬ 
lar control. When the Code of 1851 was pending before 
the General Assembly the following arguments were fre¬ 
quently advanced against the county judge system, in¬ 
cluding the provision for a county road supervisor: first, 


32 


APPLIED HISTORY 


the contention that the whole plan was arbitrary, un¬ 
democratic, and un-American, vesting unwarranted pow¬ 
ers in the hands of certain officers without making them 
directly responsible to the wishes of the people; sec¬ 
ond, it was alleged that the proposed scheme of county 
government was not based on the representative prin¬ 
ciple for the reason that if the county judge and the 
county road supervisor should come from one section of 
the county they might ignore the interests of other parts 
of the county; and third, it was declared to he highly 
dangerous to clothe any one official with such large finan¬ 
cial responsibility without providing greater checks and 
safeguards to prevent the waste and misuse of the public 
funds. 

In reply to these criticisms the Code Commissioners 
and other friends of the more centralized plan of admin¬ 
istration contended: first, that public offices were created 
for the purpose of rendering public service and not for 
the special benefit of an army of office-seekers; second, 
that representative government in the last analysis does 
not consist in the needless multiplication of official posi¬ 
tions, but rather in clothing the people of a given unit of 
government, be it township, county, or State, with the 
right to elect and control their representatives; third, 
that the simplified plan provided in the code would be 
more economical and efficient; and finally, that financial 
responsibility could be obtained quite as well through a 
few as through many public officials. 

It is needless to say that there was a large measure 
of truth in both lines of argument. At the same time, the 
pioneers of Iowa were not prepared to endorse so large 
a measure of centralized authority and control. 

It is not surprising to learn that the system of local 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


33 


government outlined in the Code of 1851 continued in 
force less than two years. One extreme is almost in¬ 
variably followed by another extreme in the evolution of 
political, social, and economic institutions; and so, on 
February 2, 1853, not only was the civil township re¬ 
stored to its former position but the local road district, 
which prevailed during the Michigan period of the Ter¬ 
ritorial history of Iowa, was also reestablished and was 
destined to hold its position for practically half a cen¬ 
tury, until it was abolished by the Anderson Road Law 
of 1902. 

The county judge system, however, was not repealed 
by any single act, but between 1853 and 1860 the repeal 
was gradually brought about by a series of laws. When 
the entire system was changed in 1860 the county judge, 
as above noted, possessed only a shadow of his former 
authority. In the meantime the civil township had rap¬ 
idly developed in power and authority, including not only 
the general supervision of highways, but a large measure 
of financial control as well. Indeed, by 1858 or at least 
by 1860, the township had come to possess the most dig¬ 
nified position in the realm of local government which it 
had held since the Michigan period of our Territorial 
history. In fact, between 1838, when the Wisconsin act 
was passed creating a board of three county commission¬ 
ers, and 1858 the advocates of the township plan of local 
administration were generally in the minority, with the 
result that the county was for the most part the dom¬ 
inating unit of local government. 

At the same time, the power of the civil township was 
rapidly increased between 1853 and 1860, the township 
clerk and the township trustees being gradually clothed 
with authority that had been vested in the county judge 


3 


34 


APPLIED HISTORY 


or the county road supervisor. In the realm of local 
finance the authority of the township had likewise come 
to be practically supreme. Aside from a levy of not more 
than one mill by the county for the making and repairing 
of bridges after the same had been approved by a vote of 
the people, the township possessed the exclusive right to 
make the actual levy of taxes for roads, bridges, plows, 
and scrapers — subject, however, to the statutory limita¬ 
tion that the levy must not be less than one mill nor more 
than three mills on the dollar. 

In a word, the substance of financial authority in the 
administration of the public highways had been trans¬ 
ferred to the township trustees and, therefore, was 
brought closer to the people even before the county judge 
system itself was finally abolished in 1860. Further¬ 
more, the division of each township into road districts 
and the election of a local road supervisor by the people 
in each district represented an extreme of administrative 
decentralization which had not existed since the Michigan 
period, but which, as has already been observed, was 
destined to continue in force until 1902. 

In 1860 the decentralized system of administration, 
which in its main outlines had prevailed during the Mich¬ 
igan period, was reestablished in Iowa. The county 
board of township supervisors representing the civil 
townships tended, on the one hand, to merge county and 
township functions and, on the other, to enable the town¬ 
ship principle of local government to become more def¬ 
initely established. With the immediate direction of road 
work in the hands of local road overseers, as provided for 
in the act of 1853, and the financial control of roads and 
bridges vested in township boards and in so-called county 
supervisors representing the civil townships, the early 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


35 


settlers of Iowa perhaps reached the high water mark of 
decentralized administration. The arguments for and 
against this system were substantially the same as those 
which had been presented in 1851. The friends of the 
township-county plan of local government maintained 
that their system was more representative in character 
and, by placing government in closer touch with the peo¬ 
ple, insured a more rigid control of the public purse. 
Indeed, the most forcible argument used in favor of the 
new system was the great danger of placing large finan¬ 
cial powers in the hands of one man. 

During the period between 1860 and 1870, which was 
characterized by a merging of township and county au¬ 
thority, it was possible for a larger measure of super¬ 
vision and control to gravitate toward the county without 
meeting with the strenuous opposition which prevailed 
when county authority was exercised by a single person. 
In other words, the reasons for depriving the county 
judge of fiscal authority from 1851 to 1860 did not apply 
with anything like the same force to the county hoard of 
township supervisors in the decade from 1860 to 1870. 
In fact, the county board of township supervisors gradu¬ 
ally came to possess much of the authority which had 
been exercised by the three county commissioners during 
the period from 1838 to 1851 and which could therefore 
be logically retained by the county when the commission¬ 
er system of county government was reestablished in 
1870. Nevertheless, the fact that a certain proportion of 
the road tax not exceeding one mill on the dollar, which 
might be paid in money, was a township rather than a 
county tax shows that the substance of fiscal authority in 
road matters was still retained by the civil township. 
While a bridge tax continued to be levied by the county, 


36 


APPLIED HISTORY 


the township trustees were destined to retain exclusive 
control of road finances until 1894 when, as has already 
been stated, a law was passed creating a county road 
fund. 

The remaining history of the forces tending toward 
the centralization or decentralization of administrative 
authority may be briefly written. The period since 1870, 
but more especially since 1883, has been characterized by 
at least three distinct movements: first, the increasing 
opposition to the local sub-district plan of directing road 
work (which opposition was ably voiced in the State Road 
Convention of 1883, hut did not bear fruit until the repeal 
in 1902 of the district road supervisor law which had been 
on the statute books since 1853); second, the centraliza¬ 
tion of large powers and authority over road and bridge 
matters in the hands of the present county board of 
supervisors, which resulted in the creation of a county 
road fund in 1894 and the optional provision for a county 
road engineer in 1911; and third, the efforts to clothe the 
State itself with substantial authority in highway and 
bridge administration, a movement which was definitely 
launched by the State Road Convention of 1883 and 
finally bore fruit in the creation of a State Highway Com¬ 
mission in 1904. It will he observed that each of these 
tendencies represent administrative centralization, on 
the one hand, and an effort to differentiate as much as 
practicable the power and authority vested in the civil 
township, the county, and the State, respectively, on the 
other hand. 

With these facts in mind, it must be apparent to the 
critical reader that the abolition of the local road district 
— which had prevailed during the Michigan period and 
later from 1853 to 1902 — meant at least two distinct 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


37 


things: first, the centralization in the board of township 
trustees of power and authority which had formerly 
been distributed among a number of district road over¬ 
seers, and which might be exercised by themselves direct¬ 
ly or indirectly by a township road master appointed by 
them and subject to their supervision and control; and 
second, the possibility, or rather the practicability, of 
more clearly defining powers which had come to be vested 
in a single township board and might be delegated to a 
township road master giving a substantial amount of his 
time to the work. Likewise, the creation of a county 
road fund, which will necessarily be enlarged from time 
to time, and the provision for a county road engineer 
appointed by the county board of supervisors and subject 
to its supervision and control, stand for a more central¬ 
ized administration, on the one hand, and for a clearer 
differentiation of county functions, on the other. More¬ 
over, it should be stated that the same movement which 
resulted in the provision for the appointment of a town¬ 
ship road master in 1902 and in the optional system of 
supervision by a county road engineer in 1911, was re¬ 
sponsible for creating a State Highway Commission in 
1904 and will inevitably lead sooner or later to the policy 
of State aid, which in turn will demand that larger pow¬ 
ers and authority be vested in the commission and at the 
same time will also result in a clear differentiation of 
State functions as distinguished from township or county 
functions. 

The progress really made during the period from 
1883, the date of the first State Road Convention, to 1904 
becomes evident when the act of 1884 is compared and 
contrasted with the legislation of 1902. The more recent 
measure, relating to the duties of township trustees, the 


38 


APPLIED HISTORY 


consolidation of road districts, and the appointment of 
township road superintendents, differed from its pre¬ 
decessor chiefly in the fact that its provisions were 
mandatory. For example, the law of 1902 plainly stipu¬ 
lated that the township trustees “ shall consolidate said 
township into one road district; ’ ’ that all road funds be¬ 
longing to the road districts of a given township “shall ’ 1 
become a general township road fund; and finally, that 
the trustees “shall” order the township road tax to be 
paid in money. Thus, the optional system, first, of pass¬ 
ing from the sub-district to the township in the matter 
of actual road administration, and second, of transfer¬ 
ring a part of the fiscal authority from the township to 
the county, which had been authorized in 1884, became 
mandatory by action of the General Assembly as to the 
county road fund in 1894 and as to the township road 
district in 1902. 

During the last decade the same forces have operated 
to shape road legislation which have existed since the be¬ 
ginning of the Territorial period, namely, the forces of 
centralization and the forces of decentralization in the 
administration of the affairs of government. An effort 
has been made since 1902 to repeal the Anderson road 
law, which provided for the consolidation of road dis¬ 
tricts on the basis of the civil township, the appointment 
of one township road superintendent, and the payment of 
road taxes in money. The chief result of the activities 
along this line was the law of 1909, which authorized the 
division of a township into road districts, the election of 
road district supervisors, and the payment of one-half 
of the road tax in labor. In practice this law has been 
almost universally ignored, and the legislation of 1911 
virtually repealed it. The other force has been the pro- 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


39 


gressive good roads movement, which has had for its 
purpose the payment of all property road taxes in money, 
the enlargement of the county road fund, the appoint¬ 
ment of a trained county road engineer, a State aid 
policy, and finally, the strengthening of the powers of the 
State Highway Commission. 

At the present time the jurisdiction of the three dis¬ 
tinct units of administration in road matters — namely, 
the township, the county, and the State —will be more 
clearly understood by referring to the distribution of 
revenue for the maintenance of roads and bridges. In 
1911 the bridge tax amounted to $3,059,319.68, the county 
road tax to $724,760.74 and the township road tax to 
$2,644,168.66. When it is recalled that the bridge tax, 
even as far back as the Territorial period, has been large¬ 
ly a county tax, it appears that the control of road and 
bridge finances is now quite equally divided between the 
township and the county. The financial power of the 
county, however, has tended to increase gradually —a 
fact which is indicated by the distribution of eighty-five 
per cent of the automobile tax to the counties to be ex¬ 
pended under the supervision of the county board of 
supervisors. 

The next step in the control of road and bridge 
finances will probably be the creation of a State aid fund 
placed under the supervision of the State Highway Com¬ 
mission, which fund might be conveniently created by 
retaining all or at least a large part of the tax on motor 
vehicles in the State treasury. Indeed, it would seem 
logical that the same economic forces which made neces¬ 
sary the centralization of large financial power, first, in 
the civil township, and second, in the county, will sooner 
or later clothe the State with a substantial measure of 


40 


APPLIED HISTORY 


fiscal authority in the building and maintenance of roads 
and bridges. Such, in fact, would seem to be the next 
logical step in an historical development which in its 
main outlines dates back for at least three-quarters of 
a century. 

ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM 

No historical analysis of road legislation in Iowa 
would be complete which did not take into account the 
economic and engineering aspects of highway adminis¬ 
tration. At the present time there are approximately 
one hundred thousand miles of wagon roads in this State, 
which means ten miles of wagon road to every mile of 
railroad. Practically all of the commodities that make 
up the great stream of commerce, whether raw materials 
or finished products, must at some time be transported 
over wagon roads. More than this, they must be trans¬ 
ported on an average of from six to ten miles. When it 
is realized that the transportation business of the rail¬ 
roads amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars, the 
great economic importance of wagon roads, which are 
necessary feeders to roads of steel, can not be overesti¬ 
mated. 

In this connection it should be stated also that the 
engineering and economic aspects of highway adminis¬ 
tration are inseparable parts of the road problem. With 
the development of more improved highway systems, in¬ 
cluding the construction of expensive and permanent 
bridges, the necessity of carrying on road work according 
to the well established principles of civil engineering has 
become more and more apparent. It is the business of 
the science of economics to measure and explain the loss 
in dollars and cents caused by bottomless roads and steep 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


41 


grades; but it is the work of the civil engineer and prac¬ 
tical highway builder to devise ways and means of de¬ 
creasing this loss by constructing a better road surface, 
and to make surveys in such a manner as to insure the 
minimum grades. The construction of good roads and 
permanent bridges therefore constitutes a complex prob¬ 
lem in economics and civil engineering, as well as in 
political science. 

Quite naturally the pioneers of Iowa gave little 
thought to the building of what are now known as perma¬ 
nent roads. The building of highways was regarded 
neither as an engineering nor an economic problem. The 
pioneers had a wilderness to conquer, as well as pos¬ 
sessing what appeared to them to be an inexhaustible 
supply of natural resources. They followed Indian trails 
through the forest and forded streams in their enthusi¬ 
asm to build a new commonwealth. The road and bridge 
question, so far as it was considered at all, was naturally 
looked upon as a logical, and perhaps not very important, 
part of the field of township and county government. It 
was regarded merely as a problem in practical political 
science, and not as a problem of economics, engineering, 
or sociology. 

During the Territorial period, and for a number of 
years after Iowa was admitted into the Union, there was 
perhaps but one exception to the general rule above out¬ 
lined. The Iowa country had but few navigable rivers; 
and for that reason no sooner had settlement penetrated 
into the interior than the necessity of having a convenient 
outlet to market presented itself to the pioneers as a 
vital, economic question. Manifestly, this necessity did 
not involve improved local roads, but it did require a few 
main thoroughfares of commerce between the principal 


42 


APPLIED HISTORY 


market points. The plank and graded road movement, 
therefore, which was the subject of constant agitation 
just before the coming of railroads, was the result of 
economic necessity. In other words, the plank and 
graded toll roads of pioneer Iowa were the logical pre¬ 
cursors of the railroad, forming a necessary connecting 
link between the local wagon roads and water trans¬ 
portation. 

Not only were graded roads and one or two plank 
roads actually constructed, but a large number of so- 
called Territorial roads and State roads were laid out by 
special acts of the legislature of the Territory and State 
between 1838 and 1857. In fact, the task of providing a 
few main thoroughfares of commerce was looked upon in 
a large measure as a State rather than as a local problem. 
Before the building of railroads not only did the State 
exercise a large measure of authority in the laying out 
and opening of the principal highways, but the construc¬ 
tion and maintenance of these highways was frequently 
regarded as an important economic and engineering 
problem. 

In contemporary newspapers may be found state¬ 
ments of the difficulty encountered by the early settlers 
in marketing their produce. Roads were practically im¬ 
passable throughout those seasons of the year when 
navigation was possible, and so it was very difficult for 
the farmer to get his produce to the market in time to 
secure the advantage of high prices. The pioneers early 
recognized that without efficient means of transportation 
the economic progress of the new commonwealth would be 
greatly retarded. From an economic standpoint it was 
generally thought that permanent roads would enable the 
farmer not only to haul much heavier loads but also to 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


43 


take his produce to market at the proper time to secure 
the best prices. Efforts were frequently made to deter¬ 
mine the loss to farmers which resulted from the im¬ 
passable condition of highways, especially at those 
seasons of the year when it was necessary or at least 
desirable to market produce. Moreover, it was frequent¬ 
ly pointed out that improved roads would greatly in¬ 
crease the value of farm lands wherever they were 
constructed. It is a significant fact that at the time of the 
plank and graded road movement, during the period from 
1846 to 1851, the same general arguments, economic and 
otherwise, were advanced as are now being urged in favor 
of a State aid policy and a permanent highway system. 

The coming of the railroad, however, was destined to 
supplant the wagon road as a main thoroughfare of trade. 
The early settlers promptly adopted the view that roads 
of steel had solved the great economic question of cheap 
transportation to available markets. Formerly all wagon 
roads, except a few of the leading thoroughfares, had 
been placed entirely under the supervision of local au¬ 
thorities and were not regarded as involving any serious 
economic or engineering problem. The agitation for 
railroads, and the building of the first line in 1855, ap¬ 
parently destroyed the economic justification for efficient 
supervision and control of roads and highways, and 
therefore tended to accelerate the movement toward ad¬ 
ministrative decentralization which prevailed between 
1853 and 1870. In fact the whole highway question was 
relegated to the control of the local units of government, 
where it was destined to remain for more than half a 
century. It is perhaps not too much to say that the 
authority exercised by the Territory of Iowa and by the 
State itself prior to 1853 has not been wholly regained 


44 


APPLIED HISTORY 


even at the present time. The creation of a State High¬ 
way Commission in 1904, however, is a recognition of 
the necessity of conferring upon the State a definite 
sphere of authority in the administration of roads and 
bridges. 

Speaking more specifically, between 1853, when the 
office of district road supervisor as it had existed in the 
Michigan period was reestablished, and 1883, when the 
State Road Convention launched the present good roads 
movement, there was little or no inclination to regard 
the administration of highways as a State function, or as 
an economic and engineering problem. The administra¬ 
tion of roads and bridges was regarded entirely as a 
township and county function, and from a financial 
standpoint, with the exception of a county bridge levy, 
the control by the civil township was practically absolute. 
It thus appears that since the coming of the railroad it 
has required more than half a century to secure any con¬ 
structive legislation recognizing the economic and en¬ 
gineering features of the road and bridge question or the 
legitimate and proper sphere of the State as distin¬ 
guished from local units of government. 

The so-called good roads movement simply means a 
recognition of the necessity of regarding the work of 
highway and bridge administration as a problem of en¬ 
gineering and economics as well as of political science. 
Moreover, as a necessary corollary of this movement, 
there is an appreciation on the part of every well in¬ 
formed person of the necessity of centralizing certain 
definite functions, first, in the township board of trustees, 
acting, perhaps, through a township road superintendent 
appointed by them; second, in the county board of super¬ 
visors with the aid and assistance of a county highway 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


45 


engineer; and third, in the State Highway Commission 
with its practical road builders and expert draughtsmen. 

The good roads movement in Iowa may be said to date 
from the State Road Convention held at Iowa City on 
March 1 and 2,1883. For the first time in the history of 
Iowa the subject of highways was discussed from the 
broad standpoint of political, economic, and engineering 
science. Indeed, the convention did not stop with mere 
discussion, but actually went on record in favor of paying 
property road taxes in money, appointing a township 
road superintendent, and establishing a county road 
fund. As has been suggested, these vital principles were 
made optional in the road legislation of 1884, but not 
mandatory until 1894 and 1902. In a word, the legisla¬ 
tion of 1894 creating a county road fund, the act of 1902 
providing for a township road superintendent and the 
payment of property road taxes in cash, the law of 1904 
establishing a State Highway Commission, and finally, 
the act of 1911 providing for an optional system of county 
road engineers, were all passed primarily as a result of 
changed economic conditions and furnish concrete evi¬ 
dence of the fact that highway administration is no 
longer simply a function of local government, but consti¬ 
tutes an important and necessary problem in engineering 
and economic science. A new period has begun in the 
history of Iowa road legislation and administration 
wherein the increased economic value of an improved 
system of highways under a policy of State aid will be 
recognized and a plan of State supervision based on the 
well established principles of engineering science will be 
formulated. 

In conclusion it should be stated that, while the move¬ 
ment for an improved system of building and maintaining 


46 


APPLIED HISTORY 


highways and bridges will require administrative ef¬ 
ficiency, scientific reform does not demand the central¬ 
ization of unwarranted powers in the State Highway 
Commission. Practically all authorities recognize the 
fact that extensive powers may wisely be delegated to the 
county board of supervisors and also to the township 
trustees. Indeed, the good roads movement does not 
mean the subtracting of authority from the civil town¬ 
ship, but rather the addition of new powers and duties 
rendered necessary by changed economic conditions. 


II 

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ROAD LEGISLATION 


A comparative study of any subject which involves an 
investigation of the laws and systems of administration 
prevailing in forty-eight States is always difficult. This 
is especially true when endeavoring to present in con¬ 
densed form a complex subject like road legislation, 
which not only includes the consideration of engineering 
and economic problems, but also comprehends practic¬ 
ally the entire system of government, both State and 
local. It has already been noted that the history of road 
legislation is in a very real sense a part of the history of 
township and county government. What is true of an 
historical study of road supervision in Iowa also applies 
to a comparative investigation of the various laws and 
forms of road and bridge administration prevailing in 
other States. 

It has seemed that the complex mass of detailed facts 
regarding road and bridge legislation may best be pre¬ 
sented, both from the standpoint of general supervision 
and of financial control, on the basis of the authority 
vested in each respective unit of government from the 
State down to the smallest administrative subdivision. 
Considered with reference to this plan or method of 
study, the sphere of jurisdiction and control vested in the 
State itself logically comes first and includes a consider¬ 
ation of the organization and powers of State highway 
departments and of the policy of State aid. This in- 


47 


48 


APPLIED HISTORY 


vestigation should be followed by an outline of the juris¬ 
diction over roads and bridges, including financial 
control, vested, first, in the counties, second, in the civil 
townships or similar units of local government, and 
third, in various road improvement districts. Under the 
term financial control there is included not only the levy 
of taxes, but also the issue of bonds in the different units 
of government. It will he understood that the county 
road engineer is a logical part of the machinery of county 
government where permanent improvements involving 
engineering skill and the expenditure of large amounts of 
money are required. Finally, certain miscellaneous prob¬ 
lems like the poll tax, convict labor, and the economics 
of highway improvement will demand a separate study. 

STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS 

At the present time forty-one States have either a 
State highway department, a State highway commis¬ 
sioner, a State engineer, or some other official or board 
possessing similar powers and authority. Arkansas, 
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, 
and Texas are the only exceptions to this rule. With 
the exception of Indiana, which has made liberal pro¬ 
vision for an extensive net-work of permanent roads by 
vesting large authority in the hands of hoards of county 
commissioners, it will be observed that all of these States 
are in the South. In other words, it appears that every 
State north of the Ohio and Potomac rivers and every 
State west of the Mississippi River, except Indiana and 
Texas, has provided some definite machinery for the 
State supervision of roads and bridges or at least for the 
collection of statistical data and the preparation of plans 
and specifications to promote the cause of intelligent 
highway administration. 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


49 


The various plans of organizing State highway de¬ 
partments present a great variety of administrative 
details. In fact, no two States have the same identical 
system of highway administration, largely for the same 
reason that no two States have exactly the same plan of 
taxation or the same public school system. A large num¬ 
ber of States have a single highway commissioner, or a 
State engineer, appointed usually by the Governor with 
the consent of the Senate, but in some cases receiving his 
appointment from a board. Arizona, Connecticut, Ken¬ 
tucky, Maine, Ohio, and Vermont are examples of States 
having a highway engineer appointed by the Governor. 
Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota represent another type 
of States having commissions of three or more members, 
usually appointed by the Governor with the consent of 
the Senate. In States like Alabama, California, Idaho, 
Iowa, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Vir¬ 
ginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, the State highway 
departments are largely ex officio in character, the actual 
work of collecting statistical data, preparing plans and 
specifications, and various functions in such cases usually 
being vested in a State highway commissioner and his 
corps of assistants. 

In a brief paper it is manifestly impossible to present 
in detail the methods of organizing highway departments 
in every State of the Union. Comparative data along 
this line may be found in the Appendix of the author’s 
History of Road Legislation in Iowa, published in the 
Iowa Economic History Series. Some of the more im¬ 
portant facts, however, relating to the organization of 
highway departments in various individual States should 
be noted. In Kansas the State engineer is appointed by 
the State Agricultural College, a plan which represents 


4 


50 


APPLIED HISTORY 


a form of organization substantially the same as that 
prevailing in Iowa. In Louisiana the highway depart¬ 
ment is simply a division or branch of the State Board of 
Engineers, the Highway Engineer being appointed by 
the board. The State Highway Engineer of Missouri is 
appointed by the State Board of Agriculture; while in 
North Carolina the office is connected with the State Geo¬ 
logical and Economic Survey, and in North Dakota a 
Good Roads Experiment Station has been established at 
Bismarck for the purpose of investigating the most prac¬ 
tical and economical method for the construction and 
maintenance of public roads. 

With reference to the powers and authority vested in 
State highway departments, no two States have exactly 
the same system. Speaking in general terms, it may be 
said that the jurisdiction over roads and bridges con¬ 
ferred upon the various State officials or boards ranges 
all the way from the mere collection of statistical data to 
almost complete supervision of a comprehensive system 
of permanent highways realized through a policy of State 
aid. Iowa is an example of a State where the highway 
department possesses very little power and authority. 

It may also be stated that the various States, through 
their highway commissions or engineers, exercise a de¬ 
gree of supervision substantially in proportion to the 
amount of money raised by the State either by taxation 
or the issuing of bonds for the building and maintenance 
of a system of highways. Indeed, the reader should bear 
in mind in this connection the underlying principles of 
representative government, which demand that the 
amount of money raised by taxation or otherwise in the 
various units of government should be subject to the 
control of officials representing these same units of gov- 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


51 


eminent. In other words, the State should have juris¬ 
diction over highways in proportion to the amount of 
money it appropriates for that purpose; and the same 
general rule holds true of the county, the township, or 
the road improvement district. 

Bearing in mind these considerations, it logically fol¬ 
lows that the States which now expend the largest sums 
of money annually in the form of State aid have neces¬ 
sarily clothed their highway departments with the largest 
measure of power and authority. In approximately 
twenty States the State highway engineer, commission, 
or department, as the case may he, is not only required 
to collect information, and prepare plans and specifica¬ 
tions, but is given a substantial amount of supervision 
over all permanent highway construction supported 
wholly or in part by a State aid policy, and in nearly all 
cases is clothed with authority to accept or reject bids 
for this important work. This list of States includes 
Alabama, Louisiana, and Virginia in the South; Cali¬ 
fornia, Colorado, and Idaho in the West; Illinois, Mich¬ 
igan, Ohio, and Wisconsin in the Middle West; and 
Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Vir¬ 
ginia in the North Atlantic and New England States. 
Thus, it appears that the policy of conferring extensive 
jurisdiction over the construction of permanent high¬ 
ways and bridges upon State highway engineers or com¬ 
missions is not confined to the leading industrial 
commonwealths of the East, but has been adopted in 
every section of the Union, in agricultural sections as 
well as in the great commercial and manufacturing 
States. 

In speaking of the power and authority conferred 


52 


APPLIED HISTORY 


upon the State highway departments of individual States 
it may be said that Alabama is an excellent example of 
a commonwealth still largely agricultural, which has 
recently made great progress in the good roads move¬ 
ment. The State Highway Engineer of Alabama is re¬ 
quired to prepare and keep a general plan of the 
highways of the State, collect statistics relative to the 
mileage, the character, and the condition of highways 
and bridges, have general supervision of the construction 
and repair of all roads and bridges improved under the 
State aid law, furnish a competent engineer where needed 
during the progress of road construction in any county, 
who is required to see that all work is done according to 
plans and specifications, and finally, the State Highway 
Engineer is required to make a map of the main high¬ 
ways in the State which should be improved and main¬ 
tained at the cost of the State in cooperation with the 
counties. All work may be let by contract to the lowest 
bidder, subject to the approval of the State Highway 
Commission. In other words, the commission is vested 
with large powers, both as to the improvement and the 
maintenance of all public highways which receive the 
benefit of State aid. 

In California the State Department of Engineering 
has full control of all so-called State highways and of all 
moneys expended by the State for the improvement of 
roads. The recent issue in that State of $18,000,000 of 
State road bonds has rendered necessary the conferring 
of greater authority upon the highway department. In 
Colorado the State Highway Commission passes upon 
plans, specifications, and estimates made by the county 
commissioners for State roads, and may approve, change, 
or disapprove of such plans. The commission must also 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


53 


pass upon contracts for State roads; and in fact all con¬ 
struction and maintenance of State roads by county 
commissioners is subject to the supervision and approval 
of the State Highway Commission. 

In all of the States above mentioned the State high¬ 
way departments have been vested with substantially the 
same jurisdiction and, as has already been suggested, 
these various commissions, boards, or State officials have 
supervision over highways in proportion to the amount 
of money appropriated by the State. In Connecticut and 
other New England States the centralization of power in 
the State highway department is very marked. Should 
the selectmen refuse to carry out the vote of their town 
for a State aid road, the highway commissioner may 
enter the town and perform this duty, a power which 
represents the somewhat unusual measure of centralized 
control that is frequently necessary in States that have 
not developed the county form of local administration. 
Indeed, a State like Connecticut is obliged to confer upon 
its State highway department certain powers and au¬ 
thority which in a State like Iowa might wisely be vested 
in the county board of supervisors, advised and assisted 
by a county road engineer. 

For a more detailed study by individual States of the 
sphere of jurisdiction conferred upon the various high¬ 
way departments the attention of the reader is called to 
the Appendix of the author’s History of Road Legisla¬ 
tion in Iowa. As a general statement it may be said that 
this jurisdiction embraces one or more of the following 
powers: first, the collection of statistical data, including 
possibly the carrying on of certain experiments, and the 
dissemination of any and all useful information relating 
to the administration of the public highways; second, the 


54 


APPLIED HISTORY 


preparation of plans and specifications for permanent 
highway improvements, including the construction of 
bridges, which may be used in connection with a regular 
system of State aid roads or, as in Iowa, may be supplied 
to local authorities upon request; third, the construction, 
and in a few cases the maintenance also, of certain trunk 
line roads entirely out of State funds and by a corps of 
regular State engineers; fourth, a substantial amount of 
supervision and control of State or county roads, or, as in 
the case of a commonwealth like New York, of even town¬ 
ship roads which were constructed partly out of funds 
appropriated by the State; and fifth, the authority to 
accept, modify, or reject all bids for work done partly 
or wholly through a policy of State aid. 

STATE AID IN EOAD BUILDING 

In this connection a few words should be said more 
specifically concerning the nature, purpose, and scope of 
the policy of State aid. No comparative study of road 
legislation and administration would be complete with¬ 
out special reference to this important subject. While in 
reality this is a logical division of the general question of 
finance, it has assumed such large proportions in recent 
years as to merit separate treatment. Prior to the com¬ 
ing of the railroad to Iowa, the Territory and later the 
State took a very active interest in the laying out, the 
opening, and the maintenance of public highways. What 
was true of Iowa in pioneer days has also been quite gen¬ 
erally true of all of the western States before the era of 
railroad building. This was a logical and necessary de¬ 
velopment, because at that time highways were looked 
upon not merely as a local convenience, but as a means 
of transportation for long distances in large sections of 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


55 


the country where water transportation was impossible 
or at least impracticable. 

As has been suggested, the first result of railway 
transportation was to relegate the whole question of 
roads to the local units of government from the stand¬ 
point of finance and administration. In recent years, 
however, it has become obvious that the railroad at best 
can only supplement and not take the place of wagon 
roads. W 7 hen it is recalled that there are now approx¬ 
imately ten miles of wagon road to every mile of railroad 
and that practically all produce must be hauled over 
wagon roads before being transported by rail, it is very 
evident that this whole system of transportation, consid¬ 
ered as a unit, is efficient in proportion to the improve¬ 
ment of the public highways. If it is vital to the economic 
interests of the country to have one-tenth of the trans¬ 
portation system constructed of steel and be put in the 
best condition that money and science can afford, it is 
even more important to have the remaining nine-tenths 
of the system improved and maintained on a reasonably 
efficient basis. The recognition of this important prin¬ 
ciple is the foundation of the good roads movement of the 
present day and of the accompanying policy of State aid. 

It is now more than twenty years since the plan of 
giving State aid was first adopted by New Jersey. At 
that time (1891) practically all road work throughout the 
entire Union was in the hands of local officials who did 
not possess expert knowledge, and as a result the whole 
system was wasteful and inefficient. Between 1891 and 
December 31, 1910, the various State aid appropriations 
in New Jersey amounted to $3,059,882.70, with the result 
that 1562 miles, or more than ten per cent of the roads 
of that State were permanently improved. 


/ 


APPLIED HISTORY 


56 


Other States rapidly followed the example of New 
Jersey, until at the present time out of the forty-eight 
commonwealths thirty-seven have adopted State aid in 
one form or another. In fact, during the year 1911, Ala¬ 
bama, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming enacted 
State aid laws; and Mr. Logan Waller Page is authority 
for the statement that at the present time nine out of the 
eleven remaining States are seriously considering this 
same question. 

It should be noted, however, that State aid does not 
always consist in money. Some States appropriate 
money for that purpose; others supply expert engin¬ 
eering assistance; others provide convict labor in some 
form; and still other States provide a combination 
of money aid, expert assistance, and convict labor. 
Georgia furnishes, perhaps, the leading example of State 
aid in the form of convict labor. At the present time 
nearly five thousand convicts are at work on its roads. 
Illinois operates a rock crushing plant with convict labor, 
furnishing crushed stone to the various counties through¬ 
out the State. A similar plan is followed in California. 
Arizona, California, Colorado, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, and Virginia provide 
both convict labor and money aid; while Wyoming, Okla¬ 
homa, and Illinois furnish convict labor and engineering 
assistance. The remaining States which have adopted 
the policy of State aid, namely, Alabama, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wiscon¬ 
sin, give money aid together with advice and engineering 
assistance. 

Money aid is generally the direct result of some form 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


57 


of State taxation. The policy of issuing bonds for this 
purpose, however, has already been adopted in a group 
of States. There is a bond issue of $18,000,000 in Cali¬ 
fornia, $4,500,000 in Connecticut, $6,000,000 in Maryland, 
$2,500,000 in Massachusetts, $1,000,000 in New Hamp¬ 
shire, $50,000,000 in New York, making a total of $82,- 
000,000. It may be stated that this plan of raising funds 
for the building of roads has become well established. 
Indeed, at the present time Rhode Island, Colorado, Ala¬ 
bama, and Pennsylvania are agitating the question of 
providing bond issues, which if adopted will amount to 
the enormous sum of $110,600,000. 

Speaking more in detail concerning the important 
subject of State aid, it appears that the following com¬ 
monwealths each appropriated more than $100,000 in 
1911 for highway purposes: Alabama, California, Colo¬ 
rado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massa¬ 
chusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, 
Virginia, and Wisconsin. Minnesota made an appropri¬ 
ation of $150,000 for the fiscal year which ended July 31, 
1912, and annually thereafter for the purpose of State 
aid and meeting the expenses of the State Highway Com¬ 
mission. Pennsylvania appropriated $4,000,000, Ohio 
$600,365, Massachusetts $500,000, Vermont $450,000, 
New Jersey $405,904, Wisconsin $390,000, Utah $355,750, 
Missouri and Virginia each $300,000, and Maine and 
Michigan each $250,000. These large appropriations, 
considered in relation to much larger outlays made by va¬ 
rious local units of government, show the enormous sums 
that are now being used for road and bridge purposes 
and reveal the extent to which the administration of this 
work is being placed on an efficient business basis. 


58 


APPLIED HISTORY 


In fact the whole subject of State aid is a part of the 
larger problem of expert administration. The road and 
bridge question, judged from the standpoint of political 
science, is one of efficient, centralized administration, and 
from the standpoint of engineering science requires ex¬ 
pert knowledge of the methods of dealing with the 
various materials of construction to the best advantage. 
The good roads movement has now reached a stage where 
as a problem of both economics and political science, and 
of the fundamental principles of engineering, it demands 
the service of the best trained minds. 

In concluding this brief study of the subject of State 
aid mention should be made of some of the different 
methods of distributing State aid funds. It is, perhaps, 
needless to say that these various methods must neces¬ 
sarily depend very largely upon economic conditions 
prevailing in a given commonwealth and also upon the 
character of its local government. In the mountainous 
States, especially, the building of permanent trunk line 
wagon roads frequently involves expenditure of money 
on a scale so vast as to make large appropriations by the 
State an imperative necessity. On the other hand, in 
States of fairly uniform economic and geographic con¬ 
ditions where the township, county, or some compromise 
principle of local government exists, the method of dis¬ 
tributing State funds is likely to be worked out, at least 
in some measure, along the line of the particular method 
of local organization which happens to prevail. In a 
word, the method of distribution varies from the ex¬ 
penditure of the entire State fund under the exclusive 
supervision of State officials to the distribution of all 
State aid revenues among the localities. 

In Alabama the State aid is apportioned by the State 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


59 


Highway Commission in such a way as to give each 
county an equal share of this fund, it being further pro¬ 
vided, however, that the county must appropriate and 
render available a sum of money equal in amount, which 
means that half of the fund to build permanent roads is 
supplied by the counties and the other half by the State. 

California, on the other hand, has a very different 
plan of distribution. A State bond issue of $18,000,000 
was authorized for the construction of a continuous and 
connected system of State highways—it being further 
provided, however, that each county must pay into the 
State treasury annually a sum equal to the interest at 
four per cent upon all the money expended within such 
county for the construction of said system of permanent 
highways, less such portion of the amount thus expend¬ 
ed as the matured bonds shall bear to the total amount 
of bonds sold and outstanding. Moreover, it should be 
stated that California has made special appropriations 
for the construction and maintenance of eleven different 
State roads, all of which are located in a mountainous 
country where the counties as such would not be finan¬ 
cially able to pay for their building and maintenance. 

In Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, and Virginia one- 
half of the permanent road fund is provided by the State 
and the other half by the counties. In Colorado and 
Minnesota one-third is paid by the State and two-thirds 
by the counties. Other commonwealths present a com¬ 
plex and instructive variety of plans of State aid dis¬ 
tribution. In this brief essay, however, only a mere 
outline statement can be made. 

In Connecticut the State pays from three-fourths to 
seven-eighths of the cost of permanent roads, depending 
upon the grand list or taxable value of the respective 


60 


APPLIED HISTORY 


towns. The State of Illinois furnishes free stone, ma¬ 
chinery, and engineering inspection; and the township 
or county, depending upon the character of local govern¬ 
ment which prevails, pays the remainder. The method 
of distribution in Maine requires the State to pay from 
two-thirds to three-sevenths, and the township from 
one-third to four-sevenths, of the cost of permanent 
roads. New Jersey presents a very complicated plan of 
distribution, the State paying thirty-three and one-third 
per cent, the county fifty-six and two-thirds per cent, 
and the township ten per cent of the cost. In Missouri 
the State pays one-half and the county, the township, or 
the abutting property owners pay the other half. New 
York has a very complicated system. The cost of build¬ 
ing so-called State roads is borne entirely by the State; 
while fifteen per cent of the cost of building county roads 
is paid by the town, thirty-five per cent by the county, and 
the remaining fifty per cent by the State. Moreover, the 
State aid granted to the different townships in New York 
varies from fifty to one hundred per cent of the amount 
of taxes raised in said township, depending upon the 
assessed valuation of the same. Ohio also has an in¬ 
structive system of distribution, one-half the cost of 
permanent highway improvement being paid by the 
State, twenty-five per cent by the county, fifteen per cent 
by the township, and ten per cent by the abutting prop¬ 
erty owners. In a word, almost every conceivable plan 
of distribution prevails in some one of the large group 
of commonwealths providing for a definite system of 
State aid. 

The subjects of convict labor and the distribution of 
motor vehicle taxes, although closely related to the whole 
sphere of State administration of public highways, are 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


61 


sufficiently important and distinct in character to require 
a separate treatment. 

LOCAL SUPERVISION' OF ROADS 

Complex as is a comparative study of the various 
systems of State highway administration, it will be gen¬ 
erally admitted that such an investigation is simple and 
elementary when compared with the vastly more intricate 
and involved problem of county supervision and control. 
While the methods of establishing the different State 
highway departments, the powers and duties conferred 
upon these commissions by law, the numerous plans of 
raising and distributing revenue by the State, the general 
relation of the State to the different local units of gov¬ 
ernment, and a large group of closely allied questions 
naturally present a complex mass of detail, yet the State 
is, after all, only a quasi-sovereign unit of government 
with a certain definite sphere of authority, the nature 
and scope of which can be classified and quite easily 
understood. Indeed, the various State constitutions giv¬ 
ing the form or general outline of government, while 
possessing numerous differences of detail, rest on sub¬ 
stantially the same broad, fundamental principles. 

The county is a mere creature of the State, occupy¬ 
ing as it does a position midway between the State and 
the smaller administrative subdivisions, and having its 
duties and functions closely woven into the whole fabric 
of government. While there has, no doubt, been a 
tendency in other States, the same as in Iowa, to differ¬ 
entiate county functions from those of the State and of 
the civil township, town or city, there is after all no very 
clear line of demarcation, especially between the respec¬ 
tive spheres of township and county authority. In fact, 


62 


APPLIED HISTORY 


a study of county organization, including the county 
supervision and control of the public highways, can not 
he made separate and distinct from an investigation of 
the duties which have been conferred by the State on the 
smaller subdivisions of local government. 

Such being the case, it is very difficult, if not impos¬ 
sible to present in brief essay form anything more than 
the main outline or fundamental principles of county 
organization as related to the supervision and control of 
roads and bridges. The differences of detail are so many 
and great that any effort to go beyond the essentials 
would necessarily lead to a study by individual States of 
county supervision of the public highways such as may 
be found in the Appendix of the author’s History of 
Road Legislation in Iowa. Certain important facts and 
tendencies, however, may readily be discovered from a 
comparative analysis of road legislation and adminis¬ 
tration and may therefore be presented at this time. 

First of all, comes the question of the organization or 
form of county government. More than three-fourths of 
the States have some plan of county organization. Even 
in New England, the birthplace of the township plan of 
local government, there is something in the way of county 
organization, including some measure of supervision and 
control of the public highways. On the one hand, the 
county may be subordinate to or coordinate with the 
civil township or it may be practically the only unit of 
local government; while on the other hand, county au¬ 
thority may be vested in a board of supervisors repre¬ 
senting the civil townships, in a board of county 
commissioners, or in the county court. In other words, 
financial control and the general work of administration 
may be highly decentralized or it may be vested in com- 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


63 


paratively few officials. With reference to this consider¬ 
ation, it is an instructive historical fact that the different 
forms of county administration which have prevailed in 
Iowa range all the way from the county board of town¬ 
ship supervisors, which existed during the Michigan 
period (1834-1836) and again during the decade from 
1860 to 1870, to the county judge system (1851-1860), by 
which an unusual amount of power was placed in the 
hands of one man. Thus in the history of local govern¬ 
ment in Iowa may be found striking illustrations of the 
extreme forms of centralized and decentralized county 
organization which now prevail in the different States 
of the Union. 

Some States present a dual plan of local government, 
and others have township organization in some counties 
and county organization elsewhere. Missouri, for ex¬ 
ample, has two distinct systems of local government and, 
therefore, two separate plans of local road administra¬ 
tion. In ninety-two counties the county court, consisting 
of a chairman, elected for a term of four years, and two 
associates, appoints a county engineer and at the same 
time divides the county into districts, appointing district 
road overseers who are required to make reports to the 
county engineer. In the remaining twenty-two counties 
the roads of each township are placed under the control 
of a township board of three members, elected by the 
people, who divide the township into road districts and 
appoint overseers who are also required to report to the 
county engineer. 

In Illinois substantially the same conditions prevail. 
Counties having township organization elect three town¬ 
ship highway commissioners, who have jurisdiction over 
the public highways and may employ road overseers or a 


64 


APPLIED HISTORY 


general superintendent. In counties that have not 
adopted township organization, county boards of com¬ 
missioners are elected by the people and required to 
divide the county into road districts. In each road dis¬ 
trict operating under this system three highway com¬ 
missioners and one clerk are elected, who in turn may 
appoint road overseers or a general superintendent. 

The more general compromise plan, however, is to 
place certain powers in the hands of the proper county 
authorities and certain other powers under the juris¬ 
diction of the civil township or similar subdivision of 
local government. This rule is followed in the large 
group of States having the so-called township-county 
system of county organization. Iowa is one of the best 
examples of this class, conferring upon both the county 
board of supervisors and the township trustees certain 
definite financial powers and, what logically follows, a 
substantial measure of supervision and control. Other 
States which have adopted some variation of this general 
plan of local government are the following: Indiana, 
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, 
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

When, however, one has studied the respective spheres 
of township and county authority as related to the super¬ 
vision of the public highways, and has catalogued the 
numerous powers and duties conferred upon various 
county and township officials, he has just made a begin¬ 
ning in his efforts to analyze the complex subject of road 
and bridge administration. The fact is that in States 
operating primarily under the county plan of local gov¬ 
ernment the general rule in the past has been to create 
small road districts and thus decentralize the actual work 



ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


65 


of supervision and control of the public highways. In a 
word, the tendency has been to establish small artificial 
administrative subdivisions with the hope of bringing 
government, which usually means the control of finances, 
closer to the people, with the result that the actual ad¬ 
ministration of roads and bridges has frequently become 
to a large extent a sub-district function quite separate 
and distinct from the powers and authority of the county 
or of the civil township. 

While it is true that the recent movement to create 
the offices of county road engineer and township road 
superintendent means a gradual return to the township 
and county as appropriate units of administration, the 
fact remains that the decentralized and inefficient sub¬ 
district plan of supervision, which has been the rule in 
the past and is quite general even at the present time, 
must be investigated apart from or at least in addition 
to any study which may be made of township and county 
organization. It is hardly necessary to observe that this 
decentralized plan of administration is not the same in 
any two States. At best, it is a cumbersome and useless 
structure. Perhaps the most definite statement which 
can be made, however, is in reference to the fact that the 
system itself has always proved inefficient and is gradu¬ 
ally being abandoned in favor of a more businesslike plan 
of supervision, represented, as will be noted later, by a 
township road superintendent or a county road engineer. 

Before making any further analysis of the general 
subject under consideration, it is well to bear in mind the 
different classes of functions of road administration 
which are being exercised directly or indirectly through 
the machinery of county organization. Briefly stated, 
these classes of powers are the following: first, the laying 


5 


66 


APPLIED HISTORY 


out and opening of public highways, which is almost 
universally a county function in States where the county 
form of local government prevails; second, the authority 
to levy taxes or issue bonds for the construction and 
maintenance of roads, which may be largely a county or 
almost exclusively a township function; and third, the 
actual work of construction and maintenance of highways 
and bridges, which may be done by State, county, or 
township officials, but which in the past has very com¬ 
monly been delegated to sub-district road overseers. 

Thus, it appears that the real work of supervision and 
control in practically all of the States, including Iowa, 
has become the most decentralized of any part of the 
general field of highway administration. By real work is 
meant the control of public expenditures for road and 
bridge purposes. In States having the county form of 
local organization, actual highway administration has 
often been broken up and dismembered quite as much as 
in other States which have the township form of local 
government. This extreme form of decentralized county 
supervision is accomplished by having two grades of 
road officials below the board of county commissioners, 
the county court, or the county board of supervisors, as 
the case may be. A few concrete examples will show 
exactly how the people, in their desire to secure popular 
control, have made- a complete sacrifice of administrative 
efficiency. 

In Alabama the court of county commissioners, which 
is composed of the judge of the probate court and four 
other commissioners, has charge of the public highways. 
This means that the commissioners are clothed with au¬ 
thority to lay out and open public roads, and levy taxes 
or issue bonds for the support and maintenance of the 



ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


67 


same. When it comes to the actual field work, however, 
the law provides that the county commissioners may 
divide the county into road precincts and appoint ap- 
portioners, who in turn appoint an overseer for each 
precinct. In other words, the overseer is separated from 
the county hoard by an intermediate official known as the 
apportioner, which fact makes any efficient and business¬ 
like administration impossible or at least impracticable. 
That this system has broken down is evidenced by the 
fact that the county commissioners have recently been 
authorized by law to appoint a county road supervisor, 
who shall be a competent civil engineer. Thus, in Ala¬ 
bama may be found the old decentralized and inefficient 
plan of road administration, and along with it the op¬ 
tional system of supervision by a county road engineer, 
which will no doubt serve as an entering wedge for the 
evolution of a more satisfactory method of supervision 
and control in the future. 

In Arkansas the county court is required to divide the 
county into road districts and appoint an overseer for 
each district. This system was modified, however, in 
1897 by a law which clothed the county court with au¬ 
thority at its option to declare each township a road 
district, the qualified voters to elect a road overseer in 
the same way that other township officers are elected. 
The system of road administration which prevails in 
Florida is much the same as that of Alabama. The two 
grades of officials below the regular county hoard are: 
first, three township road commissioners; and second, a 
road overseer appointed by said road commissioners for 
each subdivision of the road district. In other words, 
the local officials having actual direction of road work 
are far removed from the hoard of county commissioners, 


68 


APPLIED HISTORY 


who are supposed to have and exercise jurisdiction over 
the public highways. In Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, 
and in fact generally throughout the South, some modi¬ 
fication of this decentralized plan of road administration 
is still in existence. 

A larger group of States having county organization, 
however, provide but one set of officials below the regular 
county board. In this list may be mentioned States like 
California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Mary¬ 
land, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washing¬ 
ton, West Virginia, and Wyoming. No arbitrary lines 
can be drawn, of course, in making such a classification. 
The States mentioned in this list differ widely in the 
general plan of county road supervision, but in these 
commonwealths, and perhaps in others that might be 
named, there is a very obvious tendency to simplify, and 
therefore render more efficient, the machinery of actual 
road administration, which may be accomplished in one 
of two ways: first, by having the officials directly in 
charge of this work only one step removed from the reg¬ 
ular county board; or second, by providing a county road 
engineer to advise and assist the county board, and there¬ 
by centralize the entire work of county road and bridge 
administration. 

This being true, in States having the township-county, 
or especially the county, plan of local organization, the 
county road engineer is the logical result of the move¬ 
ment away from the old decentralized and more or less 
ex officio systems of road administration created during 
the pioneer days when the labor tax was the rule and the 
property tax the exception. In States where the town¬ 
ship is an important unit of local government the 
tendency to abolish the sub-district system by creating 



ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


69 


the office of township road superintendent may he ex¬ 
plained by the same economic causes, and it produces 
substantially the same general results. 

Thus, it appears that the county road superintendent 
or engineer is the logical result of present-day agitation, 
which demands a careful consideration of the principles 
of civil engineering and of economic science. Where the 
county form of local organization prevails, so rapid has 
been the movement to place the supervision and control 
of the public highways on a businesslike basis that at the 
present time more than half of the commonwealths have 
provided in some manner for the office of county road 
superintendent, supervisor, commissioner, or engineer. 
In some States the creation of the office has been made 
optional; and in still others, county superintendents are 
appointed to direct the construction of certain permanent 
roads or bridges requiring a large expenditure of funds 
and therefore a more or less definite knowledge of en¬ 
gineering science. The movement which aims at a more 
responsible and efficient method of highway administra¬ 
tion, however, is vastly more significant in itself than 
any consideration of mere details. This is particularly 
true when it is borne in mind that States having laws of 
this character are not confined to any particular section, 
but are well distributed throughout the Union. 

The list of States where this important reaction 
against the pioneer system of road supervision and con¬ 
trol is taking place includes Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, 
Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Vir¬ 
ginia in the South; Maryland, New Jersey, New York, 
Rhode Island, and Vermont in the East; Iowa, Kansas, 
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota in 
the Central West; and California and Washington on the 


70 


APPLIED HISTORY 


Pacific Coast. Colorado, Oklahoma, and West Virginia 
also belong in this class. 

In Rhode Island and Vermont the county road super¬ 
visor is appointed by the Governor — a fact which 
illustrates the principle that in States not having a 
definite system of county organization a larger measure 
of centralized authority vested in the State government 
is frequently an imperative necessity. In Washington 
the county engineer is an elective official, but in the 
vast majority of cases he is appointed by the county 
hoard of supervisors, board of county commissioners, or 
similar county authority. It is hardly necessary to point 
out that the appointive system is superior to that of 
election for any administrative office of this character. 
But whether appointive or elective, the powers and au¬ 
thority conferred upon the county road engineer must he 
defined in such a manner as to be in harmony with the 
type of local government which happens to prevail in a 
given commonwealth — a fact which is revealed by a 
detailed study of the system by individual States. 

The laws of Arizona require the hoard of supervisors 
to appoint a county superintendent of roads who is given 
charge of all public highways in the county, subject to 
the orders of the board of supervisors. This simple and 
effective system has much in common with the county 
road supervisor as provided for by the laws of Iowa in 
1851. In Colorado the hoard of county commissioners 
may divide the county into road districts and appoint a 
general road overseer for the county who shall have 
general supervision of all road work with authority to 
appoint deputy road overseers when authorized to do so 
by the county hoard — a system which even more closely 
resembles the county road supervisor plan of Iowa as 



ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


71 


outlined in the Code of 1851. In fact, the only difference 
is that the county road supervisor of Colorado is an 
appointive official, while the county road supervisor of 
Iowa in 1851 was an elective official. It should also be 
noted that in Colorado the county commissioners may 
employ a competent civil engineer to supervise the con¬ 
struction of permanent road work let by contract by the 
county commissioners after being approved by the State 
Highway Commission. 

The plans prevailing in some of the other States 
should be briefly reviewed. Iowa, in common with a 
large group of States, such as Kansas, Mississippi, Ne¬ 
braska, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming, has 
an optional system of supervision by a county road en¬ 
gineer. The laws of Indiana authorize the board of 
county commissioners to appoint competent surveyors 
when gravel or other permanent roads are to be con¬ 
structed. The county court of each county in Kentucky 
has three important powers in connection with the ad¬ 
ministration of roads and bridges: first, the appointment 
of a county road supervisor, who shall have general 
supervision of all highway work; second, to divide the 
county into road precincts or districts; and third, to ap¬ 
point a road overseer for each district. This unique 
compromise system might be made very effective by 
clothing the county road supervisor with adequate pow¬ 
ers and giving him the authority to appoint the road 
overseers for the various sub-districts, a plan which is 
desirable for the obvious reason that to secure the best 
results a deputy should be made directly responsible to 
his principal, and not indirectly responsible through some 
other official or board. 

The system of road administration in Maryland is 


72 


APPLIED HISTORY 


much more centralized and efficient than in the majority 
of commonwealths. The board of county commissioners 
is given complete authority to appoint road supervisors 
and, when deemed expedient, may place the construction 
and repair of roads and bridges directly in charge of 
competent engineers. The county court of Missouri an¬ 
nually appoints a county highway engineer, who has no 
important authority, however, over township boards or 
district overseers, or over road expenditures in general, 
except in cases where the county court itself has juris¬ 
diction. New Jersey has made great progress in the 
construction of permanent roads and for the purpose of 
carrying on this work more effectively the board of 
chosen freeholders in that State appoints a county super¬ 
visor of roads and also a county road engineer. 

In concluding the discussion of the important subject 
of county road administration, a word should be said con¬ 
cerning the systems of county highway supervision pre¬ 
vailing in New York, South Carolina, and Texas. The 
board of supervisors of any county in New York may 
appoint a county superintendent of roads whose term of 
office is four years, unless he is sooner removed by the 
board. The law requires, however, that in case the board 
of supervisors does not appoint a county superintendent 
the appointment shall be made by the State Highway 
Commission. Moreover, in cases where the appointment 
is made by the State commission two or more counties 
may be united into one road district. It further appears 
that all town superintendents of roads are under the 
supervision of the county or district superintendent, who 
in turn is under the supervision of the State Highway 
Commission and, in fact, may be removed from office by 
the commission after being presented with written 



ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


73 


charges and granted a lawful hearing. Indeed, New York 
appears to have a highly centralized and efficient plan of 
road administration which provides that the town roads 
in certain cases shall be constructed under contract to be 
awarded by the town superintendent on the basis of esti¬ 
mates, plans, and specifications furnished by the district 
or county highway superintendent or by the State High¬ 
way Commission. 

South Carolina has a unique and somewhat com¬ 
plicated plan of highway supervision. In eight counties 
the township system of road supervision prevails, but in 
all the remaining counties jurisdiction over the public 
roads is vested in the board of county commissioners and 
the county supervisor. In 1909, however, certain coun¬ 
ties were authorized by law to adopt the contract system 
and to employ superintendents and engineers and lay out 
a plan of road construction. Finally, in Texas the com¬ 
missioners’ court of any county may appoint one road 
superintendent having general supervision of the entire 
county or one superintendent for each commissioner pre¬ 
cinct. In other words, it is optional with the commis¬ 
sioners’ court whether one county road superintendent 
shall he appointed or various precinct superintendents. 

Thus, a comparative analysis of road legislation re¬ 
veals the fact that the county road supervisor, superin¬ 
tendent, commissioner, or engineer is the one county 
official around whom is crystalizing the progressive 
tendency away from pioneer road philosophy, a move¬ 
ment which is based on the fundamental principles of 
engineering and economic science, and which is therefore 
adapted to the new industrial conditions and will result 
in a more efficient and business-like administration of the 
public highways. In a word, the experience of other 


74 


APPLIED HISTORY 


States shows that the Iowa law of 1911, creating an 
optional system of supervision by a county road en¬ 
gineer is in harmony with the spirit of the good roads 
movement and should he so amended as to provide def¬ 
initely for a permanent county official, giving his whole 
time to the intelligent supervision of the construction and 
maintenance of roads and bridges. 

EOAD AND BRIDGE FUNDS 

From the standpoint of the control of road and bridge 
finances the county is an important unit of local govern¬ 
ment in the great majority of the American common¬ 
wealths. This is especially true of bridge taxes and of 
levies made for the construction of permanent roads 
involving large expenditures of public money. It has 
already been noted that even in the Territorial period of 
Iowa history the county was looked upon as the proper 
unit of local government for the levy of bridge taxes. 
The fact is that the township or sub-district has too small 
a taxable area for this purpose, a fact which has become 
quite generally recognized in States where the county or 
the township-county principle of local organization has 
been adopted. 

County revenue, whether for the construction and 
maintenance of roads or of bridges, may be obtained 
either through taxes or through the issue of bonds — 
which in the end means additional taxes, as all bonded 
debt must be liquidated at the end of a certain period. 
County levies for road and bridge purposes may be reg¬ 
ular or special. In other words, the board of county 
commissioners or similar county authority may be au¬ 
thorized to levy a certain maximum tax on their own 
initiative; but in addition to this they may make certain 



ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


75 


special levies for certain purposes, usually after such 
levies have been approved by the qualified electors at a 
special or general election. The regular county levy 
ranges all the way from one mill in South Carolina to ten 
mills in Colorado and Oregon and even twelve mills in 
Wyoming. From three to five mills appears to be the 
average regular rate. 

The extent, however, to which special levies are au¬ 
thorized can not be ascertained except through a detailed 
study by individual States of the various systems of 
highway administration, such as may be found in the 
Appendix of the author’s History of Road Legislation in 
Iowa. Two or three concrete examples will serve to 
illustrate the principle under consideration. In Nevada 
the regular levy for the county road fund is two and five- 
tenths mills; but when a majority of the property holders 
of any district shall so petition the county road commis¬ 
sioners they may levy a tax not exceeding three per cent, 
provided that the same may be paid in whole or in part 
by labor on the roads of the district at the rate of three 
dollars for each full day’s work. It thus appears that 
the two and five-tenths mills is a regular county levy, and 
the three per cent is in reality a district levy which is 
made, however, by the county board. 

In North Carolina the county commissioners have 
authority to levy a tax of not more than double the 
amount of the State tax. In Ohio the revenue system, 
judged from the standpoint of road administration, is 
very complicated. Money is derived for roads and 
bridges from the following sources: first, a tax varying 
from one-half to five and one-half mills, depending upon 
the assessed valuation, levied by the board of county 
commissioners; second, an additional tax of not more 


76 


APPLIED HISTORY 


than five-tenths of a mill for the creation of a State and 
county improvement fund, also levied by the board of 
county commissioners; third, county bonds which may 
run not more than three years; and finally, certain town¬ 
ship and district sources of revenue, including the poll 
tax. Numerous other examples might be given of States 
which provide for a maximum regular levy, and in addi¬ 
tion have certain special levies. 

The statistics collected by the Office of Public Roads 
at Washington, D. C., are partially estimates, and fail to 
differentiate between county and township revenues. In 
fact, it is difficult, if not almost impossible, to make this 
differentiation in view of the present chaotic methods of 
public accounting. On the basis of data available, how¬ 
ever, it appears that in 1904 the expenditures in the 
United States by counties, townships, and districts from 
property and poll taxes payable in cash amounted to 
$53,815,387.98, and from labor taxes $19,818,236.30. At 
the same time the expenditure as reported from local 
bond issues was $3,530,470.93, and from State aid $2,607,- 
322.66 — making a grand total of $79,771,417.87. These 
various amounts had increased so rapidly that by 1911 
the approximate road expenditure as computed by the 
Office of Public Roads was as follows: State aid $21,037,- 
769, local bond issues $18,503,356, local revenues (esti¬ 
mated) $101,750,000 — making a total of $141,291,125. 
It would be instructive to know how much of the local 
revenue as estimated was obtained from regular county 
levies as distinguished from township or district levies, 
but for reasons already suggested this information can 
not be secured at the present time with anything ap¬ 
proaching scientific accuracy. 

Reference has already been made to the large amount 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


77 


of revenue obtained for the construction and maintenance 
of permanent roads by the issue of bonds, either by the 
State, the county, the township, or the special road im¬ 
provement district. In connection with the subject of 
State aid, the issue of State bonds for this purpose was 
briefly discussed. The same rapid increase which has 
taken place in the amount of State bonds issued for the 
construction of permanent highways has also manifested 
itself in the case of the local units of government in 
every section of the Union. 

In studying local bond issues, however, it is difficult, 
if not impossible, for reasons above noted, to differentiate 
between the respective spheres of township, county, and 
sub-district authority. For example, a bond issue may in 
reality be authorized by the taxpayers of a certain im¬ 
provement district or even of a township, and yet the 
issue be nominally made by the county board of super¬ 
visors or board of county commissioners. Thus it is 
evident that to distinguish with even approximate ac¬ 
curacy between strictly county bonds, township bonds, 
and road improvement district bonds, would require an 
almost endless amount of labor and careful research not 
only of the laws themselves, but more especially of the 
manner of their administration in subdivisions of local 
government in every one of the forty-eight common¬ 
wealths. Even then it is doubtful whether it would be 
possible with present systems of public accounting to 
secure satisfactory results. 

The following table, taken from the Good Roads 
Yearbook for 1912 (page 257) gives the amount of bonds 
reported as voted by counties and townships for the year 
1911. The figures given may be incomplete, but they are 
nevertheless instructive. 


78 


APPLIED HISTOKY 


TABLE I 


Bonds Keported as Voted by Counties and Townships 1911 


Alabama . 

Arkansas .... 

California 

Delaware 

Florida . 

Georgia . 

Idaho . 

Illinois . 

Indiana . 

Iowa . 

Kansas . 

Kentucky .... 
Louisiana .... 
Maryland .... 

Michigan. 

Minnesota ... 
Mississippi . .. 

Missouri . 

Montana . 

Nebraska .... 

Nevada . 

New Jersey ... 
New York .... 
North Carolina 
North Dakota 

Ohio . 

Oklahoma .... 
Pennsylvania . 
South Carolina 
Tennessee .... 

Texas . 

Utah . 

Virginia . 


$1,135,000.00 

130,000.00 

2,295,000.00 

200,000.00 

310,000.00 

230,000.00 

38,795.50 

45,000.00 

513,754.00 

431,600.00 

697,234.80 

21,500.00 

60,000.00 

1,559,000.00 

3,657,000.00 

60,000.00 

660,000.00 

804,000.00 

312,500.00 

101,000.00 

10,000.00 

1,173,100.00 

1,953,125.00 

737,000.00 

11,400.00 

3,098,133.00 

474,500.00 

1,964,000.00 

124,000.00 

3,079,433.00 

8,915,500.00 

200,000.00 

2,650,000.00 



































ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


Washington . 
West Virginia 


79 


325,000.00 

710,000.00 


Total .$38,686,575.30 

The reports are no doubt very incomplete, and so the 
results are only relatively accurate. It appears that 
large local bond issues were authorized in the following 
States: Texas, $8,915,500; Michigan, $3,657,000; Ohio, 
$3,098,133; Tennessee, $3,079,433; Virginia, $2,650,000; 
California, $2,295,000; Pennsylvania, $1,964,000; New 
York, $1,953,125; and Maryland, $1,559,000. Alabama 
and New Jersey each authorized more than a million 
dollars in the form of county or township bonds. It is a 
significant fact that even the inadequate data given in the 
Good Roads Yearbook shows that thirty-five States voted 
township and county bonds for the construction and 
maintenance of permanent roads to the large amount of 
$38,686,575.30. The subject of local bond issues alone is 
sufficiently important for consideration in a separate 
monograph, and should be carefully investigated: first, 
with reference to the types of local organization prevail¬ 
ing in the different States; and second, from the stand¬ 
point of the good roads movement in general. 

An additional word only need be said with reference 
to the financial authority vested in the civil township by 
a large group of commonwealths. Something has al¬ 
ready been stated regarding this point in the discussion 
of the jurisdiction over the public highways vested in the 
county. The reader is familiar with the fact that some 
States have the township system of local government and 
other States the so-called township-county plan of local 
organization. It logically follows that the amount of 






80 


APPLIED HISTORY 


fiscal authority vested in the town or civil township will 
depend primarily upon the general character of local 
institutions. 

Approximately one-half of the different States have 
placed the control of road finance partly, and in some 
cases almost entirely, in the town or civil township. This 
is particularly true in New England and in States to the 
west, where the New England town exerted much in¬ 
fluence in shaping the character of local government. 
The rule in New England is to have the selectmen or 
similar authority of the town levy taxes for road pur¬ 
poses. When it comes to the distribution of State aid, 
the money is usually paid to the town on condition that 
a certain amount be raised locally. One or two concrete 
illustrations will suffice to show the general system of 
road administration, judged from the standpoint of 
financial control, now prevailing in the New England 
States. 

In Maine funds for the building and repair of roads 
and bridges are raised annually at the town meeting. 
Moreover, a very comprehensive system of State aid has 
been worked out in Maine, the money being distributed 
to the towns and other local subdivisions on condition 
that a certain part of the local road fund be set aside for 
the permanent improvement of highways under the 
supervision of the State Highway Commissioner. The 
amount thus required depends upon the taxable valuation 
of the town. In Massachusetts local funds for road pur¬ 
poses are also appropriated at the annual town meeting, 
but the counties are required to assess on the towns the 
amount necessary to meet the State appropriation. 
While the town is, therefore, the most important unit of 
local government for fiscal purposes, the county also 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


81 


possesses some real authority. Indeed, the still rather 
small amount of financial control which has come to be 
vested in the county in some sections of New England 
furnishes important evidence of the desirability of hav¬ 
ing a relatively larger taxable area when it is necessary 
to raise the amount of money required to carry on ex¬ 
tensive works of internal improvement. 

New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, 
Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Da¬ 
kota, and Nebraska are all excellent examples of the dual 
system of local organization, which vests part of the 
financial authority over roads and bridges in the county 
and part in the civil township. Iowa itself is a typical 
State of this class, the county being authorized, as al¬ 
ready observed, to make certain definite levies for both 
road and bridge purposes; while authority is at the 
same time vested in the civil township to levy a regular 
road tax and a special road drag tax of one mill. The 
tendency, however, in other States of this group, as in 
Iowa, has been to clothe the county with relatively larger 
financial authority,— a fact which may be easily ex¬ 
plained by the necessity of raising vast sums of money 
for the construction and maintenance of roads and 
bridges. 

Illinois and Missouri, as already observed, are the 
best examples of States where some of the counties are 
under township organization and therefore clothe the 
township boards with a relatively larger amount of 
financial power in the administration of the public high¬ 
ways. In Illinois in counties under township organization 
the township commissioners of highways are given the 
power to levy a road tax of not more than three and six- 
tenths mills, and, with the consent of a majority of the 


6 


82 


APPLIED HISTORY 


board of town auditors, an additional tax of not to ex¬ 
ceed two and five-tenths mills on the taxable valuation. 
This is not the case in other sections of Illinois where the 
county form of local organization prevails. That which 
is true of some portions of Illinois is also true of a few 
counties in Missouri, and of certain counties in some of 
the other States. 

With reference to special highway or road improve¬ 
ment districts, so called, it may be said that the general 
rule is to adopt the following plan in one form or an¬ 
other where a policy of establishing permanent roads has 
been well established. It has already been observed that 
in a number of commonwealths permanent roads are 
constructed in part out of State funds, in part from 
county funds, the balance being obtained by issuing bonds 
or levying taxes in special road improvement districts. 
In some cases the law specifies that a portion of the cost 
shall be paid by the abutting property owners, who form 
in reality a sort of special road district. The obvious 
theory of the law in such cases is that a permanent im¬ 
provement of this character is of special benefit to the 
immediate vicinity, of more than ordinary value to the 
county, and of general advantage to the State at large. 
On the whole, it would seem logical and proper to ap¬ 
portion at least a small part of the cost of constructing 
permanent roads to the abutting owners of real estate or 
to the property holders of the immediate vicinity. 

In Idaho special good road districts may be formed 
after a favorable vote of two-thirds of the electors, and 
bonds may be issued to an amount not exceeding twenty- 
five per cent of the assessed value of the property within 
such district. The county court in the State of Cali¬ 
fornia, upon petition of a majority of the property own- 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


83 


ers, is required to establish a road improvement district 
and appoint three persons to compose a board of direc¬ 
tors. The board of directors thus appointed is given 
authority to construct, maintain, and repair roads within 
their districts, and, in fact, to outline a complete plan of 
permanent road improvement. A number of other States 
have laws of substantially the same character, differing, 
however, in many points of detail. It thus appears that 
the formation of special highway districts for the con¬ 
struction and maintenance of highways independently, 
as well as in cooperation with county and State author¬ 
ities, is quite common throughout the Union. The subject 
of special road improvement districts, when considered 
in detail is, however, closely woven into the whole fabric 
of township and county administration, and involves, 
therefore, a consideration of numerous complex ques¬ 
tions which can be adequately investigated only on the 
basis of individual States. 

Having made a brief comparative analysis of the 
respective spheres of State, county, township, and road 
improvement district authority, both with reference to 
general supervision, on the one hand, and financial con¬ 
trol, on the other, there remain only a few special prob¬ 
lems which should be considered in this essay. Among 
others may be mentioned the motor vehicle tax, the poll 
tax, convict labor, and the general economic and en¬ 
gineering aspects of the so-called good roads movement. 

THE MOTOR VEHICLE TAX 

A brief discussion of the motor vehicle tax is of prac¬ 
tical value to Iowa at this time in view of the proposal to 
amend the present law and place all, or, substantially all 
of the revenue from this source in the State treasury to 


6 * 


84 


APPLIED HISTORY 


be used as a State road fund, in connection with a com¬ 
prehensive policy of State aid for the construction of 
permanent highways. It will he recalled that at present 
only fifteen per cent of the tax, which for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1912, amounted to more than half a mil¬ 
lion dollars, is retained in the State treasury to pay the 
cost of administration, the remaining eighty-five per cent 
being distributed among the counties and expended in the 
same wasteful manner that regular county road funds 
are too frequently expended. 

A comparative investigation of automobile tax legis¬ 
lation shows that approximately half of the States now 
possess some special form of license tax for motor ve¬ 
hicles. In some cases the proceeds of this tax are dis¬ 
tributed among the counties or other local units of 
government, but in many States revenue from this source 
is retained in the State treasury as a part of the regular 
State fund used for the construction and maintenance of 
permanent highways. The significant fact, however, is 
that whether this tax is retained by the State or dis¬ 
tributed among the localities, it is almost universally 
used for the construction or maintenance of permanent 
highways and not for the maintenance or repair of 
ordinary wagon roads. Thus, it appears that Iowa be¬ 
longs almost in a class by itself, because in this State the 
motor vehicle tax is not only distributed among the 
counties, but the law fails to require that the revenue 
from this source shall be used for permanent rather than 
mere temporary improvements. In this connection the 
experience of some other States should be of practical 
service to the General Assembly of Iowa in considering 
road legislation. 

Revenue from the automobile tax in Maryland is paid 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


85 


into the State treasury, one-fifth of the same being trans¬ 
ferred to the city of Baltimore for use on its roads and 
streets, and the remaining four-fifths being used for the 
oiling, maintenance, and repair of the modern roads now 
being built by the State and counties. Massachusetts 
makes use of this same fund to promote the good roads 
movement. In fact, the entire net amount of automobile 
fees and fines, after paying the costs of administration, is 
expended for the construction and maintenance of State 
highways and the improvement of town roads. Of the 
net amount available twenty per cent may be spent by the 
commissions upon petition of the selectmen for the con¬ 
struction or repair of main roads connecting one town 
with another. The other eighty per cent is used on reg¬ 
ular State highways. Ohio, New Hampshire, Utah, and 
Vermont are other examples of States which place the 
motor vehicle tax in the State highway fund. Nebraska, 
on the other hand, distributes this same tax among the 
counties, but with the proviso that it he used for the 
building of permanent roads. 

PERSONAL ROAD TAXES 

The personal or poll tax is still a part of the general 
system of highway administration in a majority of com¬ 
monwealths. Indeed, about three-fourths of the States 
have some form of personal road tax. Arizona, Cali¬ 
fornia, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, 
Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming require the 
payment of this tax in money, the amount ranging from 
one dollar in Wyoming to three dollars in California and 
Oregon. It is a significant fact that West Virginia is the 
only State east of the Mississippi River that has pro¬ 
vided a cash system, while all the States on the Pacific 


86 


APPLIED HISTORY 


Coast have adopted that system. The same general rule, 
however, applies to the working out of property road 
taxes, the statute labor system having quite generally 
been abolished in the western States. 

Turning to a consideration of the compromise system 
of cash or labor payment, it appears that the labor tax is 
not only more general in the South, but that heavier 
burdens of this character are required in that section of 
the Union. In Alabama the personal road tax is ten days, 
which may be commuted by the payment of ten dollars. 
Other southern States have the following provisions of 
law: Arkansas, four days or four dollars in cash; 
Florida, five days or five dollars; Georgia, ten to fifteen 
days, which may be commuted at the rate of fifty cents 
per day; and Louisiana, twelve days or twelve dollars in 
cash. In North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
and Texas heavy personal road taxes are still required. 
Virginia, however, is an example of a southern State 
which has abolished this system. In States farther to 
the North, where the poll tax has not been abolished, or 
reduced to a cash basis, the average amount is three dol¬ 
lars, which is regarded as the equivalent of two days’ 
labor on the public highways. 

While the cash system is quite common in the far 
West and a heavy labor tax is the rule in the South, it is 
instructive to note that all of the New England States 
and several commonwealths north of the Ohio and the 
Potomac and east of the Mississippi River have abol¬ 
ished the system of raising road funds by personal tax¬ 
ation. It is therefore apparent that a comparative 
analysis of personal road tax legislation reveals a 
marked tendency: first, to reduce the amount of labor 
required; second, to provide a cash system; and third, to 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


87 


abolish the poll tax as a means of obtaining revenue for 
highway purposes. 

PROPERTY ROAD TAXES 

In conclusion, it may be stated that the movement to 
place the road tax on a cash basis has been vastly more 
successful in the case of property taxes. While a few of 
the more progressive States, like Minnesota, still retain 
the wasteful labor system for property road taxes, the 
majority have abolished this plan. It should be noted, 
however, that a number of commonwealths have an 
optional system whereby a township or county, by a vote 
of the people, may authorize the working out of road 
taxes — a compromise plan which may justly be regarded 
as a logical and perhaps necessary step toward the reali¬ 
zation of the desired end, namely, the payment of all 
highway taxes in money. 

CONVICT LABOR ON ROADS 

Only a word can be said regarding the important 
subject of convict labor as related to the administration 
of the public highways. A majority of States have some 
definite system of convict labor, either on township, 
county, or State roads. In fact, it has already been noted 
that one form of State aid consists in the employment of 
convicts for crushing stone or the manufacture of some 
other form of road material for use in the construction 
of permanent highways. 

What is called the “chain gang” system of employing 
convict labor on the roads prevails in some- sections of 
the South. Prisoners are required to do road work in 
some States under the supervision of county authorities; 
and in still others, townships employ this class of labor. 


88 


APPLIED HISTORY 


Moreover, the plan of leasing out convicts to a private 
individual or corporation under the contract system 
meets with favor in few commonwealths. The most sig¬ 
nificant fact, however, about the whole system of convict 
labor is not to be found in the details of any particular 
plan, but rather in the general recognition of the prin¬ 
ciple that prisoners should be engaged in some healthful 
and productive occupation and that the construction of 
permanent roads or the manufacture of road material for 
this purpose is a form of employment which answers the 
legitimate requirements, both of economic science and of 
penology. 

In concluding this comparative study of road legisla¬ 
tion and administration special attention should be called 
to some of the concrete reasons why the good roads 
movement is necessarily based on the fundamental prin¬ 
ciples of economics and engineering science, a fact to 
which frequent reference has already been made. As has 
already been observed, a synthesis of leading facts and 
arguments is an important and frequently a necessary 
supplement to a critical analysis of details. 

TENDENCIES IN EOAD LEGISLATION 

An historical and comparative study of road legisla¬ 
tion discloses certain obvious and irresistible forces 
which indicate the economic and engineering side of the 
good roads movement. In this connection, the following 
tendencies are significant: first, the change which is 
everywhere taking place from the labor to the cash sys¬ 
tem, not only in the property road taxes but frequently 
in the personal or poll taxes as well; second, the increase 
in the size of the taxable area, which means that the 
county and the State have gradually come to be more 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


89 


important units of government from the standpoint of 
road and bridge administration; third, the raising of a 
larger and larger amount of revenue, especially for the 
construction of permanent roads by the issue of State, 
county, township, city, or road improvement district 
bonds; fourth, the general policy of State aid which has 
already been adopted in some form by thirty-seven com¬ 
monwealths, and is rendering an invaluable service in 
promoting the cause of better highways; fifth, the cen¬ 
tralization of administrative authority all along the line, 
including the State Highway Commission, a county road 
engineer, and township road commissioners or, better 
still, one township road superintendent; and sixth, the 
important work of experimentation along the line of trac¬ 
tion resistance, better materials of construction for use 
in the building and maintenance of permanent roads, and 
numerous other closely allied problems. 

The payment of road taxes in cash and the tendency 
to increase the fiscal authority of the county and State 
are rendered necessary by present economic conditions 
which demand the expenditure of vastly larger sums of 
money for the building of permanent roads and the con¬ 
struction of reinforced concrete or steel bridges. Work 
of this class is impossible, or at least impracticable, under 
the labor tax system; and yet the density and character 
of present-day traffic requires this class of improvement. 
Moreover, permanent roads and expensive bridges must 
be constructed with reference to the principles of civil 
engineering and not according to the methods of “prac¬ 
tical expediency” of pioneer days. 

For the same general reasons it has also appeared 
desirable to raise much larger sums of money by the 
issue of bonds than would be possible to obtain through 


90 


APPLIED HISTORY 


the immediate levy of direct taxes. The issue of road 
bonds to the extent of $50,000,000 in New York for the 
purpose of building a continuous and permanent system 
of highways capable of supplying the traffic demands of 
present-day industrial society may be mentioned. It is, 
perhaps, needless to say that both the preparation of 
plans and specifications and the actual supervision of 
work, which involves such a large expenditure of public 
money, should be placed in the hands of the best trained 
and most practical engineers and can not be safely dis¬ 
tributed among a long list of inexperienced local officials. 
The general policy of State aid, on the one hand, and the 
centralization of administrative authority, on the other, 
prove that political science, economics, and civil en¬ 
gineering have a logical place in the good roads move¬ 
ment. The necessity of discovering the most durable and 
satisfactory materials of construction and the testing of 
traction resistance under different conditions, both as to 
grades and quality of road-bed, shows the practical value 
of the research laboratory in promoting the cause of 
highway improvement. 

In conclusion, however, at least two important facts 
should be stated regarding the tendency to centralize ad¬ 
ministrative authority: first, this movement does not 
necessarily imply a subtraction of powers from the civil 
township or similar unit of local government, but rather 
an addition of powers to the county and State as a logical 
result of changed economic conditions which demand the 
expenditure of vastly larger sums of money and the ap¬ 
plication of the principles of engineering science; and 
second, administrative centralization logically follows 
the increase in the size of the taxable area, for the ob¬ 
vious reason that the underlying principles of repre- 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


91 


sentative democratic government require the expenditure 
of public revenue by the proper authorities of the same 
political unit that collects such revenue. In other words, 
road taxes, levied by a civil township, should he expended 
under the supervision and control of the proper officials 
of that township; and for the same reason, the revenue 
for road and bridge purposes raised by a county or by the 
State at large should he expended by the proper county 
and State authorities. Moreover, the intelligent ex¬ 
penditure of this money, under modern conditions, either 
by the township, the county, or the State, is coming to 
require expert assistance and advice — hence, the logical 
basis for appointing township road superintendents, a 
county road engineer, and a State highway commission. 


Ill 


STANDARDS OF ROAD LEGISLATION 

A thorough historical study of the road laws of Iowa 
from 1834 to the present time and a comparative investi¬ 
gation of road legislation and administration lead, it is 
believed, to the conclusion that a road and bridge law 
drafted on the basis of the most successful experience, 
both in this and other States, should embrace the follow¬ 
ing fundamental principles:— 

First. The civil township should continue to be the 
unit of local government for the maintenance of the sec¬ 
ondary or township roads, including the supervision of 
dragging. With the exception of the short period from 
July 1, 1851, to February 2, 1853, when a county road 
supervisor appointed deputy road masters, the township 
has been primarily responsible for the actual supervision 
of road work, either directly or indirectly through the 
sub-district system of local road overseers. When it is 
considered that by far the greater per cent of all roads 
will continue to be secondary roads, their supervision and 
control represent a substantial amount of authority vest¬ 
ed in the hands of township trustees. Any scientific road 
law should recognize the important sphere of jurisdic¬ 
tion over roads which throughout practically the entire 
period of Iowa history has been exercised by the civil 
township. 

It has already been noted that in a considerable num¬ 
ber of States the so-called township-county plan of local 


92 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


93 


government prevails, and with it the right of the civil 
township to levy taxes for road purposes and exercise 
jurisdiction substantially in proportion to the amount of 
expenditures authorized. In Iowa, as in many other 
States, the people have become accustomed to the town¬ 
ship plan of local organization, and so for that reason, if 
for no other, proposed road legislation should be drafted 
with this fact definitely in mind. 

Second. With a large amount of money raised an¬ 
nually by the township for the maintenance of secondary 
roads, including the dragging of the same, it is evident 
that an efficient plan of administration should be devised 
for the intelligent expenditure of this fund. For this 
purpose a township road superintendent could be ap¬ 
pointed by the township trustees, with the approval of 
the county engineer. He should devote at least a large 
part of his time to the work, and be held directly re¬ 
sponsible by the trustees for the condition of the town¬ 
ship roads. He should make reports to the county 
engineer and be subject to his supervision in the general 
features of road work. 

Third. The county is a unit of local government 
which supplies an important and necessary connecting 
link between the civil township, on the one hand, and the 
State, on the other. It is a taxable area which is suf¬ 
ficiently large to secure the necessary funds for building 
and maintaining the primary or main-traveled roads, the 
purchase of suitable road machinery, and the construc¬ 
tion of culverts and bridges. The history of Iowa road 
legislation has tended to emphasize these considerations. 
This being true, the contention frequently made that the 
road funds under the jurisdiction of the county board of 
supervisors should be relatively increased rests upon the 


94 


APPLIED HISTORY 


solid foundation both of economic and engineering 
science. 

In approximately three-fourths of the common¬ 
wealths the county possesses a large measure of fiscal 
authority in road and bridge matters, and the tendency 
is to increase this authority. Indeed, the necessity of 
raising larger and larger funds for the building of per¬ 
manent roads and the construction of expensive bridges 
requires a more extensive taxable area and, therefore, 
supplies an important economic basis for the growth in 
the financial powers and authority vested both in the 
county and in the State. 

Four. With the constantly increasing amount of 
taxes levied in the counties for road and bridge purposes 
the necessity of having a trained county engineer, who 
should be an experienced road and bridge builder, be¬ 
comes more and more apparent. This engineer should be 
appointed by and made directly responsible to the county 
board of supervisors, in much the same manner as the 
township superintendent of roads is appointed by and 
made responsible to the township trustees. He should 
have some authority over the township superintendents, 
and should be required to make reports to the State High¬ 
way Commission and confer with it in the adoption of 
general standards for road work. 

Five. The present State Highway Commission should 
be granted larger powers and authority, and the appro¬ 
priations for its support should be substantially in¬ 
creased. In this connection a policy of State aid for the 
building and maintenance of permanent roads should be 
instituted and placed under the jurisdiction of the Com¬ 
mission. The preparation of standard plans and specifi¬ 
cations for permanent roads, bridges, and culverts, the 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


95 


collection and tabulation of data relating to the public 
highways, the approval of all contracts involving the ex¬ 
penditure of State money, and the work of research and 
experimentation, together with the publication of reports 
from time to time, constitute a large and necessary field 
of labor for any permanent State commission. Indeed, it 
may be said that the State Highway Commission is the 
leader of the good roads movement in Iowa, as well as in 
a majority of the States of the Union. 

Six. Recent disclosures of loose and careless hand¬ 
ling of bridge matters, both in the letting of contracts 
and in construction work, have proven the necessity for 
adequate bridge laws. Such laws should empower the 
State Highway Commission to establish standards of 
construction as a matter of public safety and should re¬ 
quire all construction work to be done under the super¬ 
vision of the county engineer. Indeed, the experience of 
a majority of the commonwealths reveals the wisdom of 
such a requirement. With the construction of permanent 
roads and high-priced bridges, a county road engineer 
is coming more and more to be looked upon as a necessity. 

Seven. Since any permanent road that may be estab¬ 
lished is of special value to the immediate community 
and of general interest, first to the county, and second to 
the State, it is believed that road improvement districts 
should be created for this purpose, and the cost of per¬ 
manent roads apportioned equally, one-third to the road 
improvement district, one-third to the county, and the 
remaining one-third to the State. The exact method of 
apportioning the cost of permanent improvements differs 
somewhat in various States, but the fundamental prin¬ 
ciple that the State at large should bear a part of this 
expense under the policy of State aid, and that the county 


96 


APPLIED HISTORY 


or township and the road improvement district should 
likewise bear a part has become well established. 

Eight. It is further suggested that all or at least a 
very large part of the present tax on automobiles should 
be retained in the State treasury and used as a State aid 
fund for the building and maintenance of permanent 
highways. Such a policy has already been adopted in a 
number of States and, it would seem, is justified for at 
least two good reasons: first, the automobile has prac¬ 
tically eliminated county lines for the main-traveled 
county roads; and second, the rapid destruction of the 
road surface by heavy machines running at high speed 
has made the building and maintenance of permanent 
roads at large and increasing expense an imperative 
necessity. 

All property road taxes should be paid in cash; and, 
in the opinion of many good authorities, the payment of 
personal or poll road taxes in money would produce more 
satisfactory results. Indeed, the tendency along this line 
has become very marked in every section of the United 
States. 

Nine. The dragging of dirt roads, the building of per¬ 
manent highways, and the construction of culverts and 
bridges should all be placed on an efficient business basis, 
which can be done only by employing competent men and 
requiring that they give all of their time to the work. In 
a word, the township superintendent of roads, the county 
road engineer, and the State Highway Commission con¬ 
stitute the logical and necessary administrative ma¬ 
chinery of the good roads movement. The administration 
of roads by ex officio boards has never yet produced and, 
from the very nature of things, can never produce satis¬ 
factory results. 


ROAD LEGISLATION IN IOWA 


97 


In this connection the author is of the opinion that, if 
a policy of State aid is adopted, the governing board 
should include at least two or three members of recog¬ 
nized business or professional standing in the State at 
large, the work of actual supervision, however, to remain 
affiliated with the College. Such a relationship is highly 
desirable on account of the engineering advice, assistance, 
and equipment available through the facilities furnished 
by the College for carrying on the work at a minimum 
cost and far removed from those political influences that 
are always wasteful and frequently dangerous. 

Ten. Finally, it is suggested that the supervision and 
control of public highways should be a township, county, 
or State function in proportion to the relative amount of 
tax levied for that purpose by those respective juris¬ 
dictions. This conclusion is based on the time-honored 
principle. that taxation without representation is con¬ 
trary to the spirit of all democratic institutions. In the 
last analysis there are only two classes of public high¬ 
ways: local township roads, under the control of the 
township trustees and administered by a township road 
superintendent; and county roads under the jurisdiction 
of the county hoard of supervisors. The so-called State 
aid roads are simply those county roads which receive 
State aid, and should therefore be subject to the joint 
supervision of county and State authorities. 














IHiWilllMiii 


■ ■ ■ \ i- • > r ■ .('• '■ ■ 

>ii‘ipli 


Hg M I s fit tyfcfh'M 
Ilf1 3 #| hHm ulMii? 




. 

'W. fcr )'.• - ;* v- 1 ut* • 


itfi. V 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


mmm - . ■' ■ & ■ ^ 

. * » <■ r, '•:•• '•(: ? 4 H '8 << ,ii .' <\ ' .: ji.: L. iu‘ . .' ! i -W,' . * 1 : , ;... ' *» a.! !l<- • •• 


0 021 896 586 6 




iil (, ;H Ui ■;{' .Vt- ^ <■:. >Jl(i»T?i 


mmmmm 


mm ■. 


■y.'^yy . : . ..m- I '* -v. ■, :. ;!j:j4 ; : :■■' \tyy-. 

' 

?{».'•* •.* l F '' • Hi, f ' ' ( :i : a’.f !. • •{• ; I 

■■ :i-i\ \ tttfU f :: Tlf'-i ■It4 *'hM K -&•: 


fit ft iiilllfj 

’ • • ik f,. ! y •■■ 










•- ■ ;!•■ • 1 •••'',! I ft.' . . |I.,. • \,y> ■., : ■ 

"'Mb f#n. . m : • t{: | 

jw 'J-sJlm -mm '• 




' ; 9? ■ :Si Elf' ii s : p rp£; tplisii 

i iti-' ■ :; f h-tei 4 H;:K iv-#« lb: 








■ f > 






H; 






V 


it J t 
.Hlo.-r. 








r V 


V 




Ml 




; ;v» 








f -t 

i: 2 M 9 


.f 1 




*; 4 v, 


mSJIh ,, 


'll ! > V •• , 1 • V; I Kp ■ i; kM«! 

:. • •:;*•: •• : ’ j • \ -A 1 . 1 : , ‘ • ;i : r My tlliS^Vi ji'l •■* ’ :. krl 

mm m I u:fr-« rVir.iLf’rfiiHS 














(Uv/ 



iii * i * ‘ 










i.i iirfituii; 












fu 














. 

* ,Tl?f • i : 

r - y?:; Ai Hi # •; lii® w ik i y;4i'! 


•ffMIkll 


■t . 4 , 








if(; ' 


»>}•<! 




' rn y- i,:?;.»!!■■ ' 










, ■) ‘ - . 


iff ■- 


• 'I t* .t' 


Mu •• ' v . w-Vi mmw >\ iiu t h-jHj . Mr 

. j., ; | ii;.«,|j feiHj 
















• ■Mil . 1 - :f f' If M 1 , ’ 



> ifl - M Jl *"K tI * i V j 1 ' 



:' 1 Mr' 








ituU * 


lit j 


‘S' . '• •.: ’f V I T Vl ! 

' iii || j i . ' . ' ff¥ ]. L» . V 

i.i f \'s 1 

•MiJ ! i 

:s‘f 

ill 

JU I'll i • - .'ll, ' 

/ j| i 1 


‘ , f i 1 :;-... i 















i ■ 4 i - 









:;Sf ! :H 4 - ' 




* t v » ! ' 


i i ;»f • • 











YiijfJIU*Si •*. r. 




hmMw 


Wtr 


u HMV'Vffljn if ;t MM Iff Ml 





.r ‘f- -r ■ 











: o • • -, \ . 
i* i-irlY- } 










Iflioll i» «ii I 

n-’MHftf M .. VI M rl ■;».!? pf II4 U: M r .iS 






V 

\ i 5 •- ; 


, ii i r 


w im . 




‘Y.Vttv- 


•:. »M n-;•««••)) i '• i ■ • • -il l! > 'U 




. i ifitt 


... .-,,r . ... .. ^Hit • 


* 

li 

. 








I • ' : .ill: ■ .•■ . ' lr‘ !. t!?- tWP i i ! i t; : S. 







■•1 1 :"'. -'ll / 


























































































































































































































